Loading...
1986 09 10 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 -- Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, and James wildermuth STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern; Bill Engelhardt, Consulting Engineer. PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Subdivide 20 Acres into 11 Industrial Lots on Property Zoned P-4, Planned Industrial Development-and Located North of The Press Corporation, Fortier and Associates.--- e Todd Gerhardt: What the applicant is proposing here is to subdivide 21 acres of land zoned P-4, Planned Industrial Development located on Outlot A of Park One Addition. The topography of this site consists of several stands of mature trees and an existing creek in a low area on Lot 3 of Block 2. The creek runs right along the proposed road here and goes down into this low wetland area and the existing stand of trees are along the front of the lots and one in the rear here. Background on the proposed subdivision, Lot 1 of Block 1 there is an auto garage which the City Council approved for construction on December 16, 1985. Another important issue the Planning Commission should be aware of is the proposed construction of West l84th Street. The plan is to connect with Dell Road in Eden Prairie. This is a joint project with the City of Eden prairie and Chanhassen. On August 18, 1986 the City Council approved construction plans and specifications for utilities and street improvements within the Park One Addition. This project is a joint venture with the City of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. with the project to go ahead as planned, a 60 foot dedication along the east lot line of Lot 7 must be granted. This dedication must be granted by the City of Chanhassen so they can make the connection with Dell Road to their property. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 50 foot right-of-way through the middle of the subdivision and they have this proposed as rough road. The reason they are going with a 50 foot right-of-way instead of a 60 foot right-of-way is because of the dense vegetation and existing creek in there. They worked together with the City Engineer on alignment of this road. Access to each lot will be by individual driveway cuts with the exception of Lots 1 and 2. Staff talked about this quite a bit and we decided that Lots 1 and 2 should have a shared access due to the existing creek and vegetation and also there is culvert off of Lot 1. Lot 4 could only gain access off of West 77th Street instead of along here because of the intersection of West 77th and l84th would be very condensed with traffic but access could also be shared off of Lot 3. Staff is asking Planning Commission to make this as a - Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 2 e recommendation tonight access, this will be reviewed and as site plans come in, what to do with the lot. Staff is also requesting that a 40 foot conservation easement be granted along the rear of Lots 2 through 7 of Block 1. The reason for this easement is that the City has received several phone calls from residents in the Eden prairie area north of Chicago-Milwaukee-St. Paul-Pacific on the type of development that is going to occur on this site. They feel this may effect their property values and were wondering what type of screening was going to be proposed. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #86-16 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received August 29, 1986" with the following conditions: 1. That a sixty foot right-of-way be dedicated to the City along the east lot line of Lot 7, Block 1. 2. That a forty foot conservation easement be executed on Lots 2-7, Block 1. 3. That when each individual lot comes in for a site plan review, that the applicant identify on the site plan which trees will be removed. e The applicant was not present so the Chairman opened discussion up for the public hearing. Public: Why did you put a 40 foot easement on the back of the lots? Gerhardt: There is an existing auto garage here in the front. During their site plan review we measured that area as close to 40 and also the contours on this area here measure out to 40 to preserve the stand of trees along the railroad tracks which act as a buffer between the subdivision and you. Public: Do you have something that shows that subdivision in relation to what is going on in Eden prairie? Gerhardt: What we have is a map. The area to the north of the proposed subdivision is also a new subdivision in Eden prairie and this map just has dotted lines. I attached it on to the Planning Commission for their review but I didn't get a chance to make additional copies. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: I'm not familiar with a conservation easement and what it means. e Dacy: A conservation easement has been a standard tool used by the City recently and in your experience we have used it with Chanhassen vista whereby we use it to preserve the land which it applies to a buffering or Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 3 e for a park use. In this particular case, the intent here is to preserve the existing vegetation and preserve the screen and the buffer between industrial uses, the most intense use, and single family homes within 200- 300 feet across the tracks and they wanted to make sure that in perpetuity those trees and that buffer would remain. Emmings: Okay, if the trees die or whatever, do they have any obligation to put them back as the landowner? Dacy: There is a significant stand along there. Emmings: It will replace itself more or less? Dacy: That is a good point. If, for some reason some disease would hit those trees or something then we would be void of a buffer. Also what we would be looking at, when individual site plans come through on those lots, for example on one of the lots there is a gap in the trees that we would be looking for additional vegetation there. The Commission could make some type of recommendation as to if the vegetation does die that the individual property owners are obligated to replace the screen as need be. I think that is a good idea. Emmings: Do I understand from the presentation that we don't have to address in our conditions the fact that Lots 1 and 2 should share a driveway? We do that later when the specific proposals come in? e Dacy: Right, that has been the policy in the past. During the subdivision process we make it clear to the developer what we intend. Siegel: Do we know about the construction of 184th Street? Gerhartdt: The only holdup right now is for Eden prairie to review the plan and for them to acknowledge that they will go ahead with it. Siegel: What is the name of the creek and where does it come from? Dacy: I don't know if it is named. Bill Engelhardt: It is just a natural drainage way. Siegel: So it's not a flowing creek? Engelhardt: No. Siegel: Does it cross West l84th Street? Engelhardt: Yes. Siegel: So there is going to have to be a culvert installed? e Wildermuth: It appears to be a good plan and I agree with Staff , ~ Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 4 ~ recommendations especially the City's thoughts on maintaining the tree cover. Conrad: Who did the notification of public hearing go to? Dacy: We notified people in Eden prairie and everybody within 350 feet of the s u bd i vis ion. Conrad: And in Eden prairie? Dacy: You bet. We made sure of that. Conrad: tracks? How many houses abut up to the back of this across the railroad Any idea? Dacy: It was just recently platted so it is still under construction. Conrad: So there is nobody there right now? Dacy: Right and we did have a couple of calls from people who had just moved in there and I asked if they had formed a Homeowner's Association and they said no, not at this time. Conrad: How long have we had this zoned industrial? eDacy: Since when The Press went in originally and that was I believe in 1980 or 1979. Conrad: Is that good planning to abut industrial back to railroad tracks transition into residential? Dacy: From a pure planning philosophy, no. You always want to have transition uses. However, this property has been under the ownership of Mr. Beddor and was approved at a prior time. Eden prairie has been aware through our Comp Plan process in 1981 and 1982 that this is industrial so yes, from a pure planning standpoint, no, therefore our recommendations on the screening. Siegel: too? Doesn't Eden prairie have the area east of there zoned industrial Dacy: Yes, they do. Siegel: So that would be the same situation that we are facing here. Railroad tracks-industrial versus residential on the other side of the tracks. Conrad: That railroad bed is raised, right? Dacy: That is correct. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 5 e Conrad: I have no more questions. Is there a motion? Dacy: Before you make a motion, 11m just a little uncertain where the applicant is. Knowing the applicant, it is not like him to be tardy like this. If the Commission has no problem with the proposed subdivision, feel free to go ahead and make a motion. I guess I would like to suggest that maybe we wait. Table it until before the PUD ordinance consideration after the remaining items just in case he does show up because he may have concerns. Conrad: Concerns with the Staff recommendations? Dacy: Right, I just feel uneasy having the Commission act on it and the applicant is not here. Conrad: Did he say he was going to be here. Who was going to be here? Olsen: I would assume Darryl Fortier. Dacy: So, if you feel comfortable acting on it fine, but if not, you may table it to another point in the agenda. e Lyman Lumber Representative: We have one concern that maybe you have already discussed and I apologize 11m late, but we are concerned about drainage coming off our yard and cutting through and across where the proposed subdivision. We are concerned that some provision be made to insure that there is good drainage between our lot and the subdivision. Siegel: Doesnlt that go into that creek? Lyman Lumber Representative: What it is doing right now is cutting down to the little creek that goes right behind The Press and it is draining into that area. Siegel: That is going to be maintained. Lyman Lumber Representative: Okay, good. That is all we are concerned about. Thank you. Gerhardt: 1111 show you on the map what will be staying. These are drainage easements, the orange dotted lines here and the tile goes into this existing creek which follows along here which drains down into this lowland area here. Conrad: I think the screening issue is real important. Any motion we talk about, it isnlt the best backing an industrial into residential. There is a transition zone but it is only to a degree. You have a railroad track running through so that satisfies to some degree a transitional area. We donlt have residents back there right now. Whether or not they be in Chanhassen or Eden Prairie, I would like you to consider as if they were in Chanhassen. I think we need a visual barrier between the industrial and e Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1986 - Page 6 e residential people and it should be considered very important in a motion. Siegel: On that conservation easement, doesn't that imply that we have an option to require that the property owner maintain the conservation that is there or the existing lawn and flora? Dacy: It depends on the specific language of the easement itself. It has been my experience that maintaining it, that should be specifically addressed and maybe it should be a specific part of your motion to make sure that it is replaced if it is destroyed. Emmings: If we were going to include in a motion that a screen should be maintained in that area, how would you suggest we word that? Does screening mean 3 trees or 20 trees or how can we word it so it makes sense? Dacy: I would stick with the conservation easement recommendation subject to that a continuous screen be implemented by the abutting owners along the railroad track such that views from the residential neighborhood from the north would not be able to see the industrial. I think you make a general statement to that and Staff will corne back and draft it in a more precise manner. e Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-16 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received August 19, 1986" with the following conditions: 1. That a sixty foot right-of-way be dedicated to the City along the east lot line of Lot 7, Block 1. 2. That a forty foot conservation easement be executed on Lots 2-7, Block 1, at the rear of those lots along the railroad track and the point of the conservation easement is to have in that area a natural vegetation screen such that the residential area across the tracks in Eden prairie won't be looking at an industrial setting but rather will have trees and shrubs to look at and this screen must be put in place and maintained to the satisfaction of the City. 3. That when each individual lot comes in for a site plan review, that the applicant identify on the site plan which trees will be removed. All voted in favor of motion except Howard Noziska who arrived late and was not present during the voting on this motion, and the motion carried. Siegel: Barb, should we wait on this as your recommendation. Dacy: Motion is on the floor. 4It Siegel: Do you think there is anything in here? Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 7 .nrad: He should have been here at 7:30. Siegel: Well, I think we should go ahead then. PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Subdivide 1.44 Acres into 3 Single Family Lots on Property Zoned R-l, Single Family ReSIdential and Located at 3840 and 386~Lone Cedar CIrCle, Roberta Buchheit and ArllOfd Hed, Appricants~ ---- ---- Public Present: Ralph Kant Roberta Buchheit Arnold W. Hed 3820 Lone Cedar Circle 3840 Lone Cedar Circle 3860 Lone Cedar Circle Jo Ann Olsen: The property is 1.44 acres in size and they are proposing to subdivide into three single family lots with a 2.08 density. The property is located along Lake Minnewashta. One of the applicants, Roberta Buchheit, previously carne in last spring with a proposal to split her lot into two single family lots. This proposal resulted in two substandard lots and it was denied. She has now corne in with her neighbor and they have combined Lot 5 and Lot 6 to a 1.44 size parcel and they are splitting it into three parcels. They are on Lake Minnewashta and it is designated .a recreational development lake and that requires each lot abutting the e to have 20,000 square feet and to have a 75 foot width at the ordinary high water mark. The R-l District requires them to have a 90 foot width at the street frontage. Sewer and water is available to the property. Two of the lots, Lots 1 and 3 will have existing residences and they will also have the 20,000 square foot minimum. The third lot, the middle lot, Lot 2, will be vacant and it will be under 20,000 square feet. All of the lots do meet the minimum width of 75 feet at the ordinary high water mark and the 90 feet street frontage and they maintain the setbacks from the existing residences. Lot 2 does have an area suitable for a housing site and the overall average of the three lots is over 20,000 square feet and we are recommending that this be approved. As far as Lot 2, again, the building will be required at the higher elevation than the two residences abutting it and there could be a problem with the drainage from the property going to the residences so Staff is recommending that either drainage swales or berms be provided to direct the runoff from the neighboring residences to Lone Cedar Lane. Also, there is a steep slope going down to Lake Minnewashta and it is a very sensitive area so while they are developing the site, any excess fill is recommended to be removed from the site or to be pushed toward Lone Cedar Lane rather than pushing it toward Lake Minnewashta where it will erode or make the slope become more steep. There is also a fence existing right now on Lot 6 and that will, if the subdivision is approved, be part of Lot 2. We are recommending that be removed and relocated onto Lot 3. Again, this proposal does require a lot area variance but Staff feels that the overall average of 20,000 is being maintained and also they have tried to meet the requirements and can not ~e the lot line over in this direction without reducing this lot less Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 8 Jltn 20,000 square feet and they can't move this western lot line over without getting into the setbacks of the existing residences so there is the acreage there but they just can't meet it with the existing residences. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales or berms be provided on Lot 2 to direct runoff away from the existing dwellings. 2. Excess fill should be removed from Lot 2 or located towards Lone Cedar Lane. 3. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area on Lot 2 shall be completed with seed, mulch or sod. 4. The fence located on Lot 2 be removed or relocated. Noziska moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Noziska: I guess I really don't have a lot of concerns recognizing that it is probably more than 20,000 square feet. I think the Staff recommendations are concerned for the steep slope and that is taken care of in my mind. It does drop quite a ways... ~el: I just have one question concerning setting a precedent by going below the 20,000 square foot. Is there potential for other property owners coming in with variations on the square footage? Olsen: It has been done before but I guess the reason we are recommending thi s one is tha t they tr ied to meet it and they do ha ve the area there to keep that average there. As far as setting a precedent, it would be but we do have a specific reason I believe in this case. Siegel: Have we done this before with sort of like a variance type situation? Dacy: Not that I can recall. What Ms. Olsen is saying is entirely correct that when you view a variance case it is for a specific reason and it's individual situation. Staff believes, as she explained before, there is no opportunity to conform because of the location of the existing homes. If Mr. Hed's house or Mrs. Buchheit's house was 10 feet in either direction, the lot line could have shifted over and there were be no need for... Siegel: I was just wondering about surrounding lots in that area. Would we be subject to having other combining of lots in that area due to the configuration of the existing lot line. Dacy: There may be a case, there always is. As soon as you say no, there will be one next week but anybody has the right to come in and ask for a v~ance or proceed with their plat application or proceed with the split Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 9 o.he property but when that case comes in it will be evaluated on the basis of those particular merits of that lot. Roberta Buchheit: The three lots together are over 62,000 so that is over the 20,000 for each one ... Siegel: I'm aware of that but you talk about individual lots. Roberta Buchheit: There are four houses... Siegel: We could be faced with somebody coming in and wanting to do what Mrs. Buchheit wanted to do last spring. Noziska: Which was denied. Siegel: That's my big question. Will we be setting a precedent... Noziska: We are creating a necessity for action if the people on the other side. . . Emmings: As I recall and further, following up on what Howard said too, Mr. Hed last time was not in favor of the proposal last spring if I remember right and obviously now they have worked something out that they are happy with but still I guess I wonder with the 17,600, at what point would we say i .ad gotten too sm all and why should we approve it in th i s case. I guess I satisfied since they have pushed the lot out as far as they possibly can between there and they do meet the minimum distances, both on the lake and in front of the lot. I guess I can vote in favor of it for those reasons but I'm a little troubled by not knowing a good reason why we should do it in this case that would distinquish this case from other similar situations. Can you see something here that would set my mind totally at ease? Dacy: I think you just said it in your comment right now that the applicants have gone as far they can to meet the ordinance. In granting variances, the minimum variance should be granted. That is what the case allows, let the Courts come back and tell municipalities they have met all the minimum requirements except one. Again, why we need the lot area variance is because of location of the existing homes. That is a unique circumstance that Staff feels the City can base it's approval on. Secondly, the overall area of the three parcels together exceed 60,000 square feet. It comes back to the location of the homes. If you still feel uncomfortable with that, that is your right as the Commission. Brnmings: Now you are talking about this in terms of a variance? Dacy: Yes, lot area variance in conjunction with the plat approval. ~mmings: Isn't there suppose to be a hardship demonstrated when we grant a ilariance? - Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 10 e Dacy: That is correct. Emmings: And the hardship here is? Dacy: The location of the existing homes are preventing them to meet the lot area requirement for the middle lot. I see two options then. If you want to require that the proposed lot meet 20,000 square feet, then you could recommend shifting of one of the lot lines 10 feet in toward the home. In that case, we would be creating a non-conforming structure that would be within the required minimum setback. It is an option. It is not the recommended option but in this case it is a trade-off. Do you want to grant a variance and create another one or what? Emmings: I think as far as designing the middle lot, I think it has been done the way I think I would do it. I don't think they can push the line any further. Erhart: I think there is another option. Considering the value of that lot, if approved, creates, I think the applicant can redesign the deck on the house on the left. That would be small compared to the value, if you really wanted to make all three lots conforming, that deck could be reconstructed to move that left lot line over to make all three lots conform. I don't know if that is a good solution but certainly the economics are there to do that. e Dacy: That is a very good point. want to address that to him. I guess it is Mr. Hed's deck you might Mr. Hed: One of the things that concerns me, and I'm sure will concern Ralph Kant somewhat, he may have a lot later on that he would want to subdivide. When we moved in 24 years ago you had to have certain size lot. When sewer and water came in this changed the picture somewhat. Our taxes have continually gone up until they are $5,500 a year on our home right now. Bobby and I discussed that if we made this into a buffer lot, we could substantially reduce and make our home more marketable as well as Bobby's. The lot ultimately, at some point, I'm sure parties will get together and ask for another variance later likely at some point because it is almost designed to have another lot in there. We have about a 25 foot setback from our home to the lot line. Bobby has another 25 feet from her home to the lot line. The only thing that we misjudged at the time we put up a deck, which in Chanhassen you have to have a 10 foot deck variance, so we could make that 20,000. Somewhere we would have to make 18,500 or 19,000. With sewer and water changing the complexion of everything, our taxes with equalizatio~ and Carol and I plan to keep our home or build ourselves next door. Our picture has changed. The size of our home is no longer needed. We have that empty nest but we don't want to leave the neighborhood. e Conrad: I have the same concerns on precedent. I get real nervous and I don't know how I turn down the next 17,500 and would like to see 20,000 maintained. Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 11 e Noziska moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #86-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 3, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales or berms shall be provided on Lot 2 to direct runoff away from existing dwellings. 2. Excess fill should be removed from Lot 2 or located towards Lone Cedar Lane. 3. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area on Lot 2 shall be completed with seed, mulch or sod. 4. The fence located on Lot 2 be removed or relocated off of Lot 3. The following is a roll call of the voting on the motion. Erhart Emmings Siegel Conrad Wildermurth Noziska Against Against For Against For For e The vote was a tie vote so the motion was denied. Erhart: I wanted to discuss a possible other motion. Dacy: Robert's Rules of Order, whenever there is a tie motion, the motion is denied. Conrad: The motion is denied. Dacy: The motion was to approve the subdivision and the motion was tied so therefore the motion was denied. Noziska: Can't we do a second motion? Dacy: You are saying with different conditions? Conrad: Regardless of how we take it on, it's going to go to City Council so if there are recommendations, whether it's a motion or just the Planning Commission... Emmings: What we are talking about here is sort of a variation on Tim's notion that maybe the deck could be reconstructed and it has to do basically with the effect that a deck is a pretty innocuous thing to have close to a lot line and maybe there could just be a variance for the deck. Move the lot line over so the deck wouldn't have the 10 foot setback from the side line might be a way to pump a little more area into that lot. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 12 e Dacy: If you want to recommend that the west lot line... Emmings: I would like to ask them if they would be interested in doing that. Noziska: So we would have the variance on the deck rather than the lot line. Dacy: All I wanted to say was if you did recommend that the west lot line be moved 10 feet, that you really wouldn't need granting a variance to the deck. It is a setback variance. You would just be creating a non- conforming situation on that deck whereby they could not expand. At a la ter da te if they did want to expand on it, then they would have to go to a variance process. Conrad: That seems real reasonable to me because that isolates the problem to Mr. Hed who owns the fir st house and who may bu i Id on the second lot and that is a situation right there rather than a situation that effects maybe an entire community as far as lot sizes on lakes. I like that. Olsen: Do we know that that is going to give us the 20,000? Emmings: It certainly will get us closer. e Engelhardt: It will be about 19,400. Emmings: How do we go about this procedurally? Do we suggest to the applicant that they ask the City Council? Conrad: I think the applicant may want to take it to the City Council under this way. Our preference is this way. I don't want to put words in your mouth but because it is a 3-3 vote here, the City Council will just take it as a new issue basically and they may grant it the way you have it structured right now but they may also consider our comment about a different way of doing it and I'm not sure from the timing standpoint you get it in front of them quicker this way. Usually, if we have an endorsement, they will grant it quicker. If they like our idea it might sail through. I don't know. Wildermuth: change? There will be additional expense incurred if the lot lines Conrad: There is no expense to them if they go in as currently. If they go in as presented tonight there is no additional expense. If City Council says we don't like it, we want you to do what the subcommittee of the Planning Commission decided, then it is worth it to spend the extra money to replat it. e Dacy: I retrack my previous hesitation about another motion. If it is under different conditions, you could pass another motion under different conditions. No matter what the Minutes are verbatim, they will be sent to Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 13 e City Council as such. Conrad: The motion failed but you are telling me... Dacy: with those three conditions but if a new motion is stated under different conditions then that is acceptable. Erhart: From the applicant's standpoint, I guess I would like to make a motion and if they like the idea they might go with it. One thing is you add more area to that lot it may make it more valuable so with that in mind. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #86-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 3, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales or berms shall be provided on Lot 2 to direct runoff away from existing dwellings. 2. Excess fill should be removed from Lot 2 or located towards Lone Cedar Lane. 3. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area on Lot 2 shall be completed with seed, mulch or sod. e 4. The fence located on Lot 2 shall be removed or relocated off of Lot 3. 5. The west lot line of Lot 2 be moved 10 feet to make the maximum amount of square footage in the center lot and make that lot line adjacent to the existing deck. All voted in favor except Noziska who opposed and motion carried. Noziska: I believe they would be better off executing the plan the way it was presented. I think it is a double variance the way it is now. The way it was was a single variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Subdivide 12.5 Acres into 5 Single Family Lots on Property Zoned R-IA, AgrIcultural ReSIdence DistrICt-and Located 1/4 Mile~ast of Audubon Road and South of pioneer Trail, Sever Peterson, Applicant.---- Public Present: Marv Dean Stan Hamecsh 18563 Kristie Lane, Eden prairie 8325 Bavaria Road, Chaska e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 14 e Olsen: The actual acreage is 12.37 acres. Again, it is zoned R-1A as a Residential Agricultural District with minimum lot sizes of 2 1/2 acres and a minimum street frontage of 180 feet. The applicant is proposing five single family lots. Four which are 2 1/2 acres and Lot 1 is only 2.37 acres so again, we have a lot area variance requirement. Lot 1 does have the buildable area for both the home and the septic system and it is only is the right-of-way. County Road 14 goes under the property and is taking away a couple of the acres that he originally had. As far as the grade and .drainage, the slopes to the south are very steep. Lot 1 and Lot 5. Lot 1 has a steep slope going toward pioneer Trail and Lot 5 has a steep slope going down toward Bluff Creek. Staff is recommending that for Lot 5 that no alteration be allowed past the 890 elevation and this will protect the slope going down to the creek. We are also recommending that on all five lots actually, that immediate restoration be provided after construction and that erosion barriers be put in place prior to any construction. There is an existing drainage way going along pioneer Trail. We are recommending that that be maintained with culverts going underneath the driveway. As some of you know with the meeting we had last night, there are model soils and high perc rate on these lots so Staff is recommending that when they do come in for the building permit that they provide documentation showing where the septic systems are going to be located and how they are going to be conforming to the model soils and such. As far as the driveways, both the City and the County prefer on collectors to have shared driveways when possible. In Lot 1, it is very steep going toward pioneer Trail so we are recommending that it share a driveway with Lot 2 where it is a better slope for a driveway. We are also recommending that Lot 3 and 4 share a driveway and Lot 5 would have it's own. Carver County usually recommends a 300 foot minimum separation between driveways and Staff is also including that in it's recommendation of the subdivision. We are also recommending that all the driveways have turn arounds for safety of cars coming on to pioneer Trail and then finally, the subdivision was named Hidden Valley and we already have a Hidden Valley so we are requesting that that name of the subdivision be changed. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the following conditions: e 1. There shall not be any alteration of Lot 5 past the 890 foot elevation. 2. Restoration of each site shall occur immediately after construction is completed. 3. Erosion control barriers shall be required at each site. 4. Specific construction plans for the septic systems shall be provided with each building permit. 5. Access permits must be obtained from Carver County with culverts placed under each driveway. 6. Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 must share a driveway. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 15 e 7. All driveways must have a 300 foot separation and have a turn- around. 8. Each lot shall provide 10 foot utility easements along the front and side lot lines. 9. The name of Hidden Valley must be changed. Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Noziska: I guess I have to stick with my earlier thoughts on these small lots especially where we are working on some land that is pretty steep and has a slope at an elevation. I think it is very inappropriate to clump these houses down in that agricultural area. I know that we are working on our ordinances and parks and trails has a 10 acre minimum. I, myself feel that one could possibly work with a 5 acre minimum if you weren't working with a great big gully next to you but with a great big gully next to you, you are liable to be dumping raw sewage into the creek because that is the way those silly septic systems work. I think especially Lot 5 is totally inappropriate. I think if they combine Lots 1 and 2 into one or Lots 3, 4 and 5 into one, that would be fine but I think that is just a misuse or abuse of the land. It is way too many to have in an area that isn't quite ready to support them. e Wildermuth: I have the same concern. I think that this particular parcel could probably use no more than three lots... Siegel: I guess I can echo some of those concerns. I just wonder why the Staff is recommending approval. Are we in a situation where we can't say no? Olsen: We could say no because of Lot 1 because that is under 2.5 but the other ones meet the 2 1/2 acre minimum and the 180 foot street frontage. Siegel: So we could actually deny the variance for Lot 1 and make this a four lot situation instead of a five lot situation but otherwise we really can't say no based on the available data. Noziska: What about Lot 5? Can we say no because of Lot 5? Olsen: It has the 2 1/2 acres and the 180 feet. Rightfully, we don't have the conditions like with the 25 percentages, we don't have that into an ordinance yet that we could deny so it is meeting those two requirements. The acreage and the frontage. That is all we really have right now and the perc test came in under 60. Conrad: They all do don't they? Olsen: No. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 16 e Noziska: I guess that is why I suggest that we deny the variance for Lot 1 and ask for them to replat four instead of five on this plat. Emmings: Isn't there something about having two available septic sites? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: Does Lot 5 meet that? Is there plenty of room? Olsen: They had the two percs that came in under 60. What we did with Bluff Creek Greens was require them to show us those two sites. Emmings: Would there be room for two sites on this Lot? Olsen: We thought there was. One might have a lift station. Englehardt: It would be a pressure system instead of a gravity system. Emmings: I guess my only comment would be that our ordinance says 2 1/2 acres and I think we are bound to follow that whether we want to or not. Also, this development doesn't bother me particularly because it is located where it is along that highway so I don't really have any reservations about it. e Erhart: I think it is a good plan. Quite frankly I think it is a good use of land. Right now the land is being used for nothing and I think it is a good use of land for residences. It sure would be nice to have sewer and water in the area but we don't and according to Barb, won't have for 30-40 years. Secondly, I think it is absolutely consistent, in fact probably a little better plan than Bluff Creek Greens which is directly adjacent to it along the same highway. I attended the same meeting that everyone else did except for Howie I think, and I can't see how you can conclude that there should be any less than five houses in this area. I concluded from that meeting last night that the lot sizes have nothing to do with the ability to install an acceptable system. I like the wording we are using in here where we are specifically asking for construction plans for the septic system with the building permit. I think that is excellent. The one thing that I always had concerns with the rural lots is that I like them clustered and I don't like them along streets where you have driveways every 300 feet so I'm very much in favor that we enforce, as much as we can, combining driveways. We could have one cul-de-sac for all five. I would be promoting that but because of the way the site is, it is not practical. Conrad: I don't like the one variance. The only thing Tim that I can say, talking about our meeting last night, which I thought was really informative and really good, is you could feel good about septic systems if you had the controls and if they are engineered properly. Then you are comfortable. I don't know as though we have those controls. I know that we don't. In fact, that is an absolute. We do not have the controls so if we had them, I was sold last night but I don't see them so therefore, I am e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 17 e real concerned. Therefore the bottom line for me is the one variance I can't go for. I think we can put four houses in there but the way I see the subdivision now, I could not go for the five. Noziska: I guess I wouldn't be as concerned about the variance on Lot 1 as I would be about the location of the septic system on Lot 5. Even though it has this mircaulous acreage. We have to take a look at what that acreage consists of. It consists of one whale of a gully. Look how that thing starts out. It starts out somewhere about 900 and all of a sudden it drops to the depths. I guess that is the part that bothers me. Over here I think it is in a location where the septic and the drainage system has a chance to sort of filter itself out a little bit. I have much more problems with Lot 5 than with Lot L I still believe that we made a gross error in Chanhassen in proceeding with this 2.5 acres. That is one of my major problems but if the City Council is going to go ahead with it, that is what they are going to do but again, I say Lot 5 bothers me much more than Lot 1. Conrad: That is a sensitive area as far as I'm concerned and I think if I denied one variance, I would probably like to see a different configuration of the four houses. I think that is my bottom line. Noziska: Your chances for erosion are much greater over there. Your chances for dumping raw sewage into that ravine. I think by the time anyone gets into any drainage pattern, that is going to be pretty well cleaned up. But I think that Lot 5 there is a good possibility that it Lot e 3 ... Conrad: We had a good meeting last night where the Soil and Water Conservation folks came in and extension people from the University of Minnesota and talked about septic systems. How they work, how they can work and it was real good. Basically, I think most of us went away thinking, I went away thinking, that you can put a good system anyplace and if it is engineered properly for the amount of water, whatever that is going through it, it can be taken care of. Noziska: Are you talking about anorobic and aerobic digestion and evaporation? Absolutely. Conrad: I feel more comfortable and therefore, there are engineered ways obviously that can take care of it but it goes back to the unique standards to enforce it. You need the monitoring, you need the good system to begin with and that is what I think the City is going to steps those up right now. Erhart: Is there any way that we can make this part of the approval that the developer be required to conform to any regulations that be put into place within the next twelve (12) months during this process of reviewing septic systems regulations. I believe that after last night's meeting and the fact that the City has contracted with this consultant, the City is going to change it's regulations and will require probably on-going e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 18 e inspections and so forth. Maybe what we can do is we can enforce the fact that this is going through the process before those regulations are put in place and force this guy to conform even though he may otherwise get in advanced of such rule changes. Siegel: what is the status of that Bluff Creek Estates? That went through as it was platted? Olsen: with some changes. Noziska: Which is another excellent example of most probably done as the last solution to that valley. It houses, a majority were located right next to those very steep slopes that you see in Lot 5. Not in my wildest estimation would I imagine somebody putting a septic system in their front yard and that leaves the backyard which drops off at an extremely fast pace so those are the things that I look at when I see them. I grant you that, sure you can design those septic systems very well. You also have a slope coming down sideways so you are really going to create some swales in there to keep one lot from draining onto the next. Maybe the City Engineer, and the DNR and everybody else says okay, fine but you are dropping 50 feet there and really very few square feet to plot a house on and to install a septic system. The vegetation there is pretty good so you are going to get some assistance from the trees. e Erhart: What is the status? We hired a consultant to do this, help us revise our septic system regulations. How is that going to be applied to Bluff Creek Greens and something like this? Can it be applied retroactive current to the subdivision or what is the thinking there? Dacy: It depends on how the process proceeds. Mr. Machmeier, his first charge is going to be to look at the ordinance and make recommendations. That will have to be reviewed by the Commission and the Council. The Council, one of their options includes either amending it or not amending it or making some other type of recommendation. Until the ordinance is passed, Staff and the City still has an obligation to process applications. If it meets the current standards of ordinance requirements, if that is shown, then we will have to issue the permit. Erhart: On the other hand, we can trade our approval of the variance for the one lot for making them conform to whatever ordinance changes. Dacy: If the Commission still feels that they would like additional information regarding the plat, you could table it with that recommendation if you feel you need additional information. Emmings: Is there any sentiment for having a moritorium that was on these developments in the rural area or the unsewered area? Is anything being done on that? e Dacy: It is hard to say because we don't know what the ordinance revision is going to come back with. We have just had a training session meeting Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 19 e that we are looking at all the issues. In order to issue a moritorium we are going to have to have a solid reason why. It could very well get to the Council and they could deny the ordinance modification. Emmings: After the training session last night, at least it was very apparent to me that our ordinances are inadequate. They are based on looking at the wrong kind of things and they have no standards in with regards to maintenance of these systems and there is a lot of work to be done there. To the extent that we approve subdivisions like these, and I do feel some obligation if somebody does come in with one of these, that I think it does meet our ordinance but we are creating problems for the future because we are failing to address things that are currently well known, at least to the scientific community if not to us, and it would seem to me that would be a darn good reason to have a moritorium until we come up with an ordinance that addresses what we found out to be important. Dacy: We have to pass an ordinance for a moritorium and until that has passed, the community just can not say, hold it on your development. Emmings: How long does that take to do that? Dacy: It could take up to 60 days depending on how fast we crank it out. Erhart: Who initiates it? e Dacy: An ordinance can be initiated by the Council, Planning Commission or by petition from a group of property owners. In this case, Council directed Staff to have Mr. Machmeier, as one of his scope of services to come back with his recommendations on the ordinance. Emmings: what kind of a time line? Dacy: As fast as we can move. I'm meeting with him Monday afternoon. We will go from there. I don't anticipate that his recommendation would take that long. He listed off 3 or 4 in the meeting last night so he has had our ordinance for some time. Conrad: Nothing moves fast though. Seriously, I've never seen anything race through. 60 days would be incredible if anything happened in 60 days. Dacy: Mr. Chairman I believe that Mr. Englehardt wanted to say something. Engelhardt: I was just going to comment that Lot 5 is a difficult lot for two reasons. One is the model soils at 2 1/2 feet or so. In other words, you don't get the 3 foot of separation but that can be handled in the design of the system. The other one is the slopes but it appears that your septic system for Lot 5 would go in the area of P-l or perc test 1 and that would be about 80 feet from the 890 contour that we are looking at establishing as a no fill area so it's not like it is right on top but it remains about 80 feet away. e Planning Commission Meeting Septembe~ 10, 1986 - Page 20 - Con~ad: If that site failed, then where do you move it? Engelhardt: If P-l failed? Conrad: In 10 years. Then what do you do on that prope~ty? Noziska: Then they build a mound system. They don't have any choice. Engelha~dt: P-l and P-2, the~e still is a~ea. You can go eithe~ side of P-l to get an a~ea. I guess that is what I would anticipate whe~e the septic system would be built. It is a difficult lot. Dacy: If the Commission still feels uncomfo~table with this particula~ plat, and from my unde~standing the applicant isn't he~e, I guess at this point I would suggest a tabling of this until the next meeting until the applicant is here and in the meantime Staff will convey to them the Commission's concern about Lot 5 until that time because if you do, ultimately recommend to eliminate Lot 5 or combine 4 and 5 or keep it as is, the applicant is probably going to want to know that. Siegel: Remove the variance on Lot 1 and restructure it into a four lot with a different configuration for Lot 5. e Dacy: I'm sure Jo Ann probably explained that the reason that the one variance is needed is that the lot area of the entire piece was so close that it was eithe~ having five lots at hundredth of an acre, it would 2.48 or do we issue five lot area variances for two hund~edths of an acre or should we have one lot area variance for sixteenth hundredths of an acre so Staff's recommendation to the applicant was we should have four conforming lots and I believe Lot 1 was the one that was short, is that correct? Olsen: Yes. Conrad: Well, we have some options. We can table it if somebody wants to so move or we can make a motion on what we see in front of us and give the applicant the chance to go to City Council. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to table the request to subdivide12.5 acres into 5 single family lots on property zoned R-IA, Agricultural Residence District and located 1/4 mile east of Audubon Road and South of pioneer Trail until Staff has had a chance to get back to the applicant with the concerns that have been raised by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor of tabling the matter and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Development. PUBLIC PRESENT e Jay Johnson Bill Boyt 7496 Saratoga 7204 Kiowa Circle Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 21 e Dacy: The City Attorney called me with some, what he felt were some minor corrections. If I can refer you to Attachment #1. Page 2 of the proposed ordinance, at the top of the page, No.6, Parks and Open Space. He recommended that in the first sentence of that subparagraph, "the creation of public open space may be required by the City." He felt that the remaining sentence, he said that there are times when the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council may have a different view upon what should be enacted and he felt that it may tie the City's hand on requiring parkland so he felt by eliminating that last phrase and saying "by the City." that we still have the ability to require parkland. with the inclusion of the second sentence saying that has to be consistent with the Comp Plan, we are still giving them the direction that it has to be consistent with our overall park policies. The second correction, at the bottom of page 2, he wanted the minimum lot size and minimum lot width issues pertain to single family detached situations and he felt that detached should be added in items number 1 and 2. Over to page 8, this is the final one from the Attorney's office, regarding procedure No.4, before 14.06, that particular item is explaining the ability for a developer to combine processes if necessary. The second sentence, "if appropriate, because of the limited scale of the proposal" he is recommending that it be changed to read "the general concept development stage and final stage may proceed simultaneously". He is saying that in some cases you may not need a general concept plan review and that is another public hearing so he just wanted to eliminate the word preliminary and final plats and just insert the terms that are referred to in the ordinance. e Noziska: Say that again. Just the wording. Dacy: The general concept plan, the development stage plan and the final plan may proceed simultaneously. Erhart: What did you do with 4 under Required Standards? Dacy: I tried to explain that in those last two paragraphs and obviously I didn't come through. Erhart: In the last two paragraphs of your analysis? Dacy: Right. As I note in the report, we got a call from a math professor. Erhart: I agree with him. Dacy: Correct me if I'm wrong but I got the intent from the Commission and Council from our workshop meeting that everything is 15,000 square feet, lot size, etc. and it is up to the developer to prove the earning of points under 7. If the developer can prove or establish the awarding of points or the reduction in the average lot size, then in essence, the City is saying yes, it is a PUD. You are creating various items and the trade-off is that we will reduce the average lot size. If that is the case, then 4 is not necessary. If we calculate the average lot size to be at 15,000 square e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 22 e feet and we've got 12,000 square foot lots in the other 50%, there would be no way to achieve that 15,000 square feet. You would have to raise to 18,000 to offset the 12,000 so the way it was presented in the hearing and, I think it was confusing but if you eliminated 4, you still have 3 which says 50% of the lots have to be 15,000 or greater which means the median, the exact middle of that lot is going to 15,000 square feet. I realize that the intent is you don't want two 5 acre lots that boost the average but with 3 you are requiring a significant chunk of a developer's land to be 15,000 square feet and above. Secondly, you have the check of the items under 7. If you don't believe that a proposal is a PUD then it has to be a straight subdivision of 15,000 square foot lots. Erhart: So are you proposing to eliminate 4? Dacy: Right. Erhart: There is an alternative to that and still satisfy us all and that is to change your second number 15,000 to a higher number that way by eliminating the possibility of a guy coming in with one 5 acre lot and using that to determine his average. Dacy: We looked at that but we are never going to know how much to offset the average calculation by. It all depends on the awarding of the points. As long as you have 7, there should be no need for 4 because we went through differences. What happens if you have 50 lots and Todd is mad at me because I made him recalculate things 300 times. e Conrad: If you are looking for the end average of 15, he is right but I don't think I proposed the end average of 15. Now maybe others want to see that but at first I thought that was an extra piece of garbage in this that was confusing and the more I read it the more it made sense. There is no motivation for the developer, based on the point scheme, if we use the real lot sizes and incorporate them into the overall average, we have nothing to motivate the developer to do those 7 things because those points help us get down to the smaller average lot size. It is going to hard to follow. I've probably lost everyone already. If you treat your large lots, which are half of them to begin with, you have to have half of your lots at 15,000 and it seems unfair to begin with but basically it is very much in favor of the developer. The developer now has half of the lots at 15,000 and we're going to award points so he can take that average down from 15,000 and basically if you get 10 points in our scheme, you potentially can have the other 50% of lots as 12,000 square foot lots ending up at 13,500 for an overall average. It would be impossible for the developer to get to a 13,500, literally impossible, if we didn't have point 4 in there. Dacy: Because of 3 though you got 50% of the lots, that is half the lots being 15,000 square feet. If they don't have the points in 7, then there is no way they can reduce below 15,000 square feet and then it's not a PUD. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 23 e Conrad: But I'm saying that if you use, okay we eliminate that and if we use the real lot sizes, on the average, we won't be able to give the developer any motivation to do any of those nifty things that we want. Dacy: Yes you are because you are saying if they don't do those nifty things, then it has to be 15,000 square feet. A straight subdivision. Conrad: Yes, but incorporating those 50% of the lots that are over, those lot sizes may average at 18,000 square feet so if they average out at 18,000 square feet and we are saying we are going to give you a density bonus or we are going to give you a bonus of 10%, that 10% will basically allow the other 50% to come in at 12,000. Right, then average out at 15,000 so basically we motivated nothing. Dacy: Now, what you should do then, you math makers help me, then say reduce it 10% based on the average lot size of the 50% of the lots that are 15,000 and greater because if it is 18,000 square feet then you will be getting down to, what's 10% of l8,000? e Conrad: So you take 1,800 off and that is nothing. There is no developer who would want to have a PUD. They would not do the things that we are trying to do so, Barb said it a different way. We could simply use those motivational things, those points for the 50% of the lots. We could leave the 50% that are large lots and we'll say, okay developer if you want any lots under that, we will give you a bonus if you do some things overall and that bonus. If we reduce it to just dealing with the 50%, we will give you a bonus if you do some things overall and if we reduce it to just dealing with the 50%, we could go up to a 20% bonus because we took out the other half of the lots. We doubled the amount of bonus points that they can get so potentially if we wanted to get down to 12,000 square foot lot size from a 15,000, we would give them a 20% bonus on the small sized lots. I lost you all. Erhart: It is 20% of what? Conrad: 20% of your 15,000. Emmings: Why do you have to do it mathematically? It seems to me and the way I understand a PUD, and if this is wrong tell me, in fact the way you have always said it, is that the City ought to be getting something back for granting a favor and the favor is some smaller lots. Instead of reducing that to mathematical formulas and points and all that, I think you have to do that on the density and 50% must contain 15,000, that is fine. I thought there ought to be language added in here in 7 that makes it a little more subjective and once you are satisfied and somebody comes in and says I want half my lots to be 18,000 and therefore the other half to 12,000, we just say no. We're not going to let you do it because we're not getting anything for that and if you don't like that, fine just plan it as a subdivision. By suggesting the things under 7 as the kinds of things that we are interested that if they are willing to do them we are willing to allow them some smaller lot sizes, then we will talk to them about what e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 24 e the smaller lot sizes are going to be. That is why I thought it was dangerous to have points there because then they can look through and pick what they want and say okay, now I'm entitled to this many lots of a smaller size. Conrad: I was uncomfortable with the points, how we assigned points but I'm not sure that telling the developer what we want isn't a mistake and saying that you can get a bonus of 5 points or 5% increase in density, I think that is fair to the developer so he knows what to shoot for. e Emmings: I think if the City is interested in getting something back or interested in getting something for giving something, you are setting up a negotiation where the developer sits down with the City and says, I'm going to do this for the City if they City will do this for me. I think that is what we are really trying to promote here and at some time the City ought to pullout of those negotiations and just say, no, you are not giving us enough. It is going to be a subdivision. Follow the subdivision o rd i nance. Other wise, they can come in say we have done 1 and 3 and we are entitled to this many points and we are entitled to this much of a reduction and maybe for the land that it is on, those are the least desirable or are totally inappropriate. We want to try and channel him into the areas we want to develop so I would add some language to 7 and say something like reduction in average lot size may be granted if, in the opinion of the City Staff, Commissions and Council, the plan includes features that are desirable to the City such as...and then list these things out so that it is clear that that is staying in our kind of subjective control. Then I think we can kick 4 out without worrying about it because I do think there is a problem with 4 when you look at it. Conrad: I wouldn't mind kicking it out but I think it is real tough to explain. I can't explain it but mechanically we have to do something because as I look back through how it is worded, that is the only thing that saves the mechanics to get the developer down to the 12,000 square foot lot size. Based on the way this ordinance is written, the developer would never be able to come up with a 12,000 square foot lots. Could not do it. Emmings: Right, but if you eliminate the mechanics and say this is a subjective process of negotiation between the City, that the City intends to stay in control of, you don't need the mechanics. Erhart: Would you repeat that for Barb. They were having their subcommittee. Steve had a real good point in some rewording in 7 that I think would clear the whole thing up. That is what I always figured too is that the developer should be selling the City and the City should be sitting back in judgment whether he can get reduced sized lots so the wording should be. -- Emmings: The language I added I have written down but the rest of what I said, I have no idea. Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 25 e Conrad: Where are you Barb? different? Are you listening or are you doing something Dacy: I'm still at my original position. Well, what was your recommended language? Sorry, we were talking. You were saying? Erhart: Eliminate 4. e Emmings: The point Barb being we want to make a PUD a situation where the City sits down with the developer and negotiates and he gets something that he wants and we get something that we want. I would add a sentence to the end of 7, that intitial paragraph that would say that a reduction in average lot size may be granted if, in the opinion of the City, Commissions and Council, the plan includes features desirable to the City such as, and then list out those things that are listed down including, it says other at the bottom which I think is a good idea. It should be opened ended. These are suggestions. They are not all we are looking for. That way it seems to me that it gives the City all the flexibility it needs to sit down and negotiate with the guy and just say at any point, no, for this particular land, this plan doesn't give us what we want rather then letting the developer pick the things out'of the list that he might want but might not be appropriate for the particular land involved. We want to say which things he should be looking at for this particular plan for that particular piece of land. We should be working with him and if he is not willing to work with us or if we don't like the things that he is willing to do, even if they are things that are on the list, then we should pull back out and say just do the subdivision. Dacy: Yes, if you want to add that, that is fine. I just keep going back to 3. That 50% is guaranteeing that 50% of the lots are 15,000 or greater. If you do get an average lot size greater then that, to me, I'm looking from the standpoint as Steve was saying, if they do prove items that it is a PUD then you should be allowing smaller lot sizes. That is the whole trade off and if it is an average of 18,000, to me that is to our benefit with larger lot sizes. Conrad: What is the motivation to have the averge at l8,000? Dacy: The motivation is if they don't prove any of those things, they can't have a PUD. Conrad: So what they end up with are 15,000 and 18,000 square foot. Dacy: What they end up with is a straight subdivision. They come in with everything at 15,000 square foot lots. Olsen: You can still have some lots lower than 15,000 and still have a higher average. Isn't that mathematically possible? You could still have larger lots by having a PUD and they could have maybe five 13,000 lots but some of the other lots are larger than 15,000 so the average doesn't have to be 15,000. They are still getting a benefit. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - page 26 e Conrad: They are corning in over the average lot size of 15,000 and you are saying we are giving them the priviledge of creating some small lots. Dacy: If they meet this. Conrad: If they meet this. Dacy: And you guys hold the cards on tha t and if they don't, it's a straight subdivision. Ernmings: We're not saying different things though, are we? Dacy: I don't think so. Emmings: The other thing that I think ought to be in here that isn't in here, and I don't know, do you think it would be useful to have a statement in here that would say that in the past we have had bad experience with our PUD ordinance because developers have created a few large lots which they want to average against a whole bunch of small ones and we consider that an abuse and we aren't going to allow that in the future. Dacy: Sure, we could replace 4 with something similar to that statement. In no case shall the City consider the creation of a small number of very large lots to offset the overall average but again, the 50% thing to me is e just your insurance policy. Erhart: What I'm hearing here is two different trains of thought. On one hand you are under the impression that we still want to maintain a 15,000 square foot average lot size. Dacy and Emmings: No. Dacy: I'm saying that if it is not a PUD then it is a straight subdivision and the only people that are going to be able to determine that are you. Erhart: Then why are you trying to put anything in here to maintain this 15,000 square foot average if what we are saying is the PUD allows the developer to go below that. Wildermuth: It allows it to go down to 13,500. Dacy: If these items are met. Erhart: That is what Steve's statement. Dacy: I agree wi th Steve. Erhart: I don't think you need 4 at all. e Dacy: That's where I started out from. Planning Commssion Meeting September 10, 1986 - page 27 e Emmings: They are recommending that we strike 4. Conrad: I would rather not have 4 but mechanically I don't see how this ordinance works. When you take 4 out of there, I don't see how we have encouraged the developer to do any of those seven things because the wording as such doesn't motivate them unless with financial rewards. Emmings: No, because they can't have the PUD unless they satisfy us that they are doing something for us. Dacy: We could add the sentence, the following things must be included in an application if it is to be considered a PUD. Maybe you should put 7 as 1. This is the whole heart of the ordinance. Conrad: The question is are we motivating through average lot size? Is that right? Dacy: We're motivating because if they don't meet these things they are forced into a straight subdivision. Conrad: To tell you the truth, they will be better off doing that anyway because the way this is worded, we are forcing them way over 15,000. The way it is worded, we don't have any carrot in there for them to do the things that we would like because on the average I don't believe they could ever get down to the 13,500. e Olsen: They could. Conrad: The only way they can do that, Jo Ann is if they build all 50% of their lots at exactly 15,000 and then they earn all 10 points. That is the only way they can do it. Emmings: So they get the 50% at 12,000. Conrad: 50% at exactly 15,000 square feet and then the other lots, if they earned as much as they could, they could then come in at 12,000, which we know that they can't do. We know there is going to be a variation of that 12,000 so they will probably average out maybe at 12,500 or 13,000 for those small lots and their big lots are not going to average 15,000. They are going to have to come in at 15,500, 16,000 at least so those two numbers together and we've just given them a reduction in square footage of about 25 feet under the 15,000 square foot standard. Emmings: Then the question is do we care? Conrad: I'm saying there isn't enough incentive. Dacy: Let me restate it so I make sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the only way we can get down to 13,500 is to have all 50% of the lots at 15,000. Correct? e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 28 e Conrad: Right. That is the only way. Dacy: Do we want to encourage 50% of the lots all at 15,000 square feet? Conrad: No. Dacy: Then eliminate 3. Conrad: We don't want to do that. Let's go back to what you said. I think the problem is real solvable. Half of the lots are going to be over 15,000. We don't care what they are. Half the lots are there. We will play with the other half. 50% of the lots can be smaller and those are the ones that we want to concentrate on. Not the lots that are over 15,000 square feet so when we give a bonus, and I have to go back to points. I don't know how to deal with this without. There has to be a way to deal with how much the developer... Dacy: But under 3, what you are saying, under what you are saying that would encourage them to corne in with smaller lot sizes then. Conrad: You've got to if you want these things. If you want pedestrian walkways. They aren't going to do that for a reduction in lot size of 20 feet and if we want these things and for Howie's solar benefit, if we want solar houses, they aren't going to do it. e Dacy: Then just have a blanket statement then that everything is 15,000 square feet unless you meet the items in 7. Not all the items but if you prove that it is a PUD and contains some of these items. Siegel: Are we just assuming that the PUD is just going to be single family residential? Dacy: No. If a PUD comes in with attached housing, twin homes, apartments and so on, these single family lot requirements are going to fallout if there is not a single family detached home in the development. Siegel: So these required standards are just for a PUD that includes only single family homes? It doesn't say that in here. Dacy: It is worded as such, and that is why the Attorney added these terms detached. If an apartment project comes, it is impossible but the opening paragraph of 14.03 allows for that. These will not apply to any type of other PUD. Siegel: So really, we are just talking about a single family development, not a subdivision? Dacy: Right, there could be a mixture of uses. They come in with apartments, they corne in with 60 lots of single family homes and that portion of the development has to meet these standards. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 29 e Siegel: That is also a PUD. Now how would that effect any single family that would be put into that same PUD? Would they go back to these standards with l5,000? Dacy: Housing variety is one of the items that you are trying to encourage then it would be up to the City to try to negotiate. Do they want to relax the standards that they have set? Emmings: On the second one too, creative design, both of those could include doing some things other than single family detached. Erhart: What you are talking about with the existing wording, assuming you leave out 4, is that an increase in 10% of the number of lots in a subdivision. For example if it is a 50 unit subdivision, using our normal subdivision regulations, you could increase that to 55 if you got all the points. Is that incentive enough? Conrad: Does it work that way? I don't think it really works that way Tim. It may be more simple if it worked that way, and I played that one through a time or two, and my mind is not really getting up with all this. e Erhart: Let me walk it through. Let's assume you have a 50 unit development and all the lots are 15,000 square feet. That works out that the average lot size may be reduced by 10% so if you take 50 x 15,000 you get 750,000 square feet. Now if you reduce the average lot by 10%, now that is 13,500 so you take 750,000 and divide it by 13,500 and you get 55.5 lots. When you think about it, when you reduce the average lot size and you have a given amount of area and reduce it by 10%, you are going to have close to 10% more lots so that is the incentive. It is sort of obvious when you think about it. Conrad: So what we are going to do is plug those additional five lots though into half the area so then what does that do to that other half area and that is going to be dependent upon how many units are in that half area right? Erhart: I don't know. You guys came up with that. Conrad: It is a good idea but we are going to have to mechanically work through it. That is the simple way of doing it. That is the nice way of doing it if it really works. Erhart: Doesn't that work? Bill Boyt: Not if 50% of your homes have to be on 15,000 square foot lots, it doesn't work. Erhart: You're going to have half of them are going to have to be 12,000 square feet. ~ Dacy: You are saying on an overall basis, right? Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 30 e Erhart: Half of the lots will be 12,000 square feet if you strike 4. Jay Johnson: You don't want that. You don't want two distinct lot sizes. Dacy: You are making a big assumption that they are meeting the 10% requirement. Conrad: This is our worse scenario. Dacy: Then think of it. This is a PUD. This is for trade offs between the City and the developer and if he is meeting what you want in here, then he is going to be saying then well give me what the intent of the ordinance is. I should deserve to get my 10% in points, etc. Emmings: That is why we have to stay away from points. You have to stop doing that. Erhart: That is exactly what you don't want is to have some guy coming in here and say you owe this to me. If you reword it like Steve has it then he has to sell the City on it. Dacy: I know that but if you guys feel that he doesn't deserve the 10% that is what the tradeback from the City to the developer is. I don't want you to get the impression that yes, you earned your 10% but I'm sorry they still have to be all 14,000 square foot lots. e Erhart: What else would you do? Is that all we're giving them is smaller average lots? Dacy: Come up with a different method then. I just wanted to make sure that if they fully deserve what they deserve, then be prepared to give back what they are entitled to get. Emmings: That argues to me in favor of eliminating 3 or reducing 3. If you are going to have a negotiating process, maybe that is just too stultifying. Maybe the guy deserves to have more incentive. I have to agree with you but why then put in 3? You are really stultifying the guys creativity in coming up with something that is more interesting by imposing 3. Conrad: 3 is a starting point actually. 3 is where we start a subdivision. Emmings: Well, maybe it has evolved where we can just get rid of it. I wouldn't be uncomfortable with a median as long as you have the control to say no, we're not getting enough for it. You are going to have to do a straight subdivision. Why do we need 3? e Siegel: The whole objective here was to give Staff some facts and figures to be sure of. Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 31 e Dacy: Right and to go back a little bit, if we did eliminate 4 saying if they do qualify for a PUD trade and negotiation, what that you still wanted at least 50% of the lots 15,000 or above. though it is a PUD you still wanted that minimum standard. and you are I got is Even Conrad: We rode with that because that was what was originally proposed. Dacy: We have come full circle and it is back to 4 again. If you want to leave it in and recommend that to the Council, that is obviously within your pervue. We are saying that it could cause more confusion than it is worth and it might confuse the whole issue. Conrad: I would strike that if I could put something else in in another area. Erhart: Something else for what? For what purpose? objective? What is the Conrad: My objective would be just to deal with how to give them a bonus for smaller lots. How to allow them to have lots under the 15,000. Siegel: I think Steve came up with some good comments on, what did you say Steve? It sort of clarified some of the wording above that. e Dacy: Reduction in lot size, in the opinion of the City. Emmings: No, I said reduction in average may be granted if, in the opinion of the City Staff, Commissions and Council;-the plan includes features that are desirable to the City such as: then all the stuff that follows. Siegel: points. It sort of clarifies and leads into the following points. Not Emmings: No, not points and under 3, I don't know, I'll just throw this out for discussion, I don't think we should say the 50% of the single family lots must contain at least 15,000. If you want something in there, I would say that as a general guideline we would like to see 50% of the lots at least at 15,000. Again, if they come back with just the right piece of property and just the right things on it, maybe we would be willing to negotiate on that one too. This says it must and that's not permissive language and I think it should be permissive rather than mandatory. Siegel: Doesn't that sort of throw a pie in the face of what we originally decided to go with and that was to give Staff some definite, real hard figures so we aren't deciding every PUD based on... Noziska: Then if someone still wants to come in with something else, they can come in. That is part of their perogative but these are the harsh guidelines. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 32 e Conrad: The hard ones are hard to go. If the ordinance says half is going to be in 15,000 or greater, it would be hard to get around that. That is what the ordinance says. Dacy: That is just like if the proposal came in and they had a lot of 11,500 square feet. It is in essence a variance. They are going to be asking we want relief from the requirement for the 12,000 and Staff can say that is very unlikely based on past applications but they still have the right. If the Commission and City Council strongly felt that the standard should be varied, then that is their perogative. Emmings: That satisifies me I guess. Dacy: Are you going to open discussion. Conrad: Well, we might as well. I like Tim's idea because it is very straight forward but I really don't understand how it will work. I don't know if it administratively will work. We talk about increasing the number of lots. Does that really, within these guidelines, work in all cases? It may work in big subdivision or a big PUD and maybe not work in a small one and that bothers me a little bit. e Dacy: I think it could work in the fact that you are dealing with a ratio. No matter what the size of the parcel. The larger the number of lots, then in essence, you are granting a 10% increase then obviously you are going to have an increasing number along with it. That 10% is still going to be maintained. There may be physical conditions on the property that you may not be able to get the extra lots. Conrad: Let me just throw out this thing that I've been playing with and it may be the wrong way to go. If we have half the lots at 15,000 or greater and we negotiate these other things, we potentially increase for the smaller lots, we could decrease the average lot size with half of those lots by 20% and that comes in at 12,000. In essence, as long as all that half came in at 12,000 and the other half came in over 15,000 because it is created that way, the worse we would do overall is 13,500 but probably greater than 13,500. Rather than dealing with increasing lots, my method would be deal with lot footage for half the lots that we are working with. I don't know which one works best. I know that my method does work but I haven't thought it all through. Olsen: You're not sure if that gives enough incentive? Conrad: I think mine gives enough incentive and actually I think Tim's gives more incentive. Tim's is good. I just don't know that it works consistently. Erhart: I'm only what is in here. interpretted it. 15,000, you can't interpretting what it reads here. It's not my idea but I heard Jim, I heard you think it works the way I With 12,000 minimum lot and with half the lots above get a 20% overall reduction in the average lot size. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 33 e Conrad: No. Erhart: 10 is the maximum you can get with those numbers mathematically. Conrad: I would have to get to where I originally suggested that 13,500 average overall. Let me start back at the beginning. If subdivision is 15,000, if that is our standard, I thought we needed to be able to point out to that developer we will give you an overall average of 13,500 overall with a carrot big enough to get some decent stuff in return. That is where I started from. I think Pat Swenson had a formula that averaged out to like 13,800 but it would not allow a flexible PUD and that is why I wanted to propose something a little bit different. Anyway, that is where I started from. To allow this 13,500 to be reached you have to be able to permit them to have enough 12,000 square foot lots out there and I didn't see the way this was drafted that they could achieve and I'm still not sure that I have a solution on a way to do it. Dacy: The only way they can get smaller lots is if they meet 7 period. Conrad: Okay, then if we throw out 4, tell me how you would administer this? Dacy: The developers would have to come in and show what items under 7 are being earned to reduce the average lot size. e Conrad: Okay, then they are going to say we are going to take 10 acres and make it a park. Dacy: Then it is going to be up to the City, you didn't want to assign points or anything, you wanted to keep it flexible, it will be up to the City to determine whether or not they get the full 10, 5 or 3 percent. Conrad: Let's say the City awards the full 10%, now what? How would you, based on the way it is drafted... Dacy: Then they have the ability to go down to 13,500 square feet for an average. Erhart: Which includes the ability to have half the lots at 12,000 square feet. Dacy: That is if you decide to give the full 10%. Emmings: Can I ask one more question? I've got one that confuses me under 7. We are going to word one that says large lots. Dacy: Remember that was large lot homes and you clarified that in the workshop that that did include the large lots along lakeshore or wetlands or it appears that they are going out of their way to create these things for exclusive homes, etc. then you want that listed as a item that the City would consider for reduction of lot size. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 34 e Emmings: It just seems to me to the extent that there are large lots, there is going to be opportunities for small lots. Like we say, the more large lots you have, the more small lots we will give you. Dacy: Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall that if they did come in and they were going to have an exclusive part of the subdivision and propose housing styles that were very upscale, I got the feeling that your direction was to change large lot homes to large lots. Now if you don't want that in there then. Emmings: I just don't think I understand it. Conrad: Somebody suggested that. e Bill Boyt: I feel like I've lived with this for the last nine months at least. To bring up 4, there is at least another issue and that is what we worked with was what do you do when you have a lot that is 25,000 square feet of which 10,000 is buildable so I think there is some point where it is maybe 20,000 square feet but there is some point at which there is really not a lot of benefit to the neighborhood to have that lot significantly bigger and it certainly impacts on the average. So for the sake of figuring averages, I think it is reasonable to say whatever your limit is, and I would propose something around 20,000 square feet, that anything over 20,000 square feet, in terms of figuring average, counts as 20,000 square feet. what you have done there is you have basically said to the builder it doesn't pay to have a lot in this development over 20,000 square feet. Whatever size you pick I think is pretty important but I think it is important to say to the builder, we're not trying to get lots where some of them are 25,000 square feet and some of them 12,000, since that is your minimum. I think that is an issue. When you do a standard development, what is the minimum lot size? Dacy: 15,000. Boyt: That is the minimum lot size in a standard development and what you are doing is you are talking about let's make that the average or less. That is a tremendous incentive all by itself. If you are going from minimum and I don't think in most of Chanhassen that a developer can come in and just layout lots that are one after another the same size because of the terrain. So given that, if you set 15,000 and then a person had to work down from that, instead of saying that a person had to work down from that instead of saying look, half of them have to be 15,000 and half of them don't. It is a big incentive that you are playing with when you are going from 15,000 down and I think you might want to look at that. Another point to look at is, I think there is a lot of value in saying to the developer that this is what we want you to do but I think you said pretty clearly to the developer out my back door, this is what you want to do and what he did is he turned around and he did what any other developer is going to do to you is he is going to do past precedent. As soon as you give somebody a certain percentage for a certain percent of their involvement that went into park, they would be crazy not to come back to e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 35 e you and say now tell me why I can't get the same percentages. You are dealing with past precedent in any ordinance that you pass I think. e Jay Johnson: I guess I'm a little mixed on this. You were talking about, to mill on Bill's point, the subdivision ordinance is a minimum of 15,000 square feet not an average of 15,000. I actually like 4 and 3 in there and think 7 is unworkable without both 3 and 4 in there from a mathematical point of view. There is one thing that everybody keeps saying is this 15,000 foot average lot size. It's no place in here. I've read through this a couple of times and it's no place in here unless it is further down. I've only read the first couple of pages and no place does it say that the average will be 15,000. It's not there and if that is what we are trying to mean here, 15,000 average is one elacious incentive over 15,000 minimum. If you take what this ordinance is saying, it is saying we want you to have a median lot size of 15,000 which is what the City has been saying all through the debates that Bill and I were involved with, is that they wanted the median lot size. 50% of them must be bigger than 15,000 for a PUD. I think that is a reasonable standard to shoot for. That the minimum lot size be 12,000 is a good minimum. To make this thing work the way it is going, 4 is tossed in there so that we are going to tell you that okay, the standard subdivision that we are talking about a minimum of 15,000, if you are building 100 lots on this subdivision, this standard would then say that you can build 100 lots in the subdivision and just call it a subdivision. If you want to call it a PUD, you can build 109 lots on that subdivision by conforming with what is in here for the same square footage of actual lots. What I think we need also is some wording in here that states that the uniqueness of each subdivision will be taken into account on its own merits so we eliminate some of this past precedent. Joe did this. Well, Joe had a lake next to it and you've got a old garbage dump next to you. You are apples and oranges so I think the subdivision ordinance needs some wording where we are comparing you against what you are and not against what other things are so you have to stand completely on your own merits. I'm not exactly sure how that would be worded in there. I haven't had that much time to study this but I think that wording needs to be in there somehow or other and I think a lot of people have really .gotten messed up on the mathematics of this whole thing. Another thing is we keep only talking about one item here, lot size as lot size is our only carrot. There is more than lot size that developers are constantly asking variances for. There is lot width, there is a lot requirement that the lot lines be diagonal perpendicular to the streets. In a PUD you don't have that. That is another cookie you could give them. I really haven't had enough time to look at this to corne up with a good decision but I think the median lot size of 15,000 is very important. If you go below that with your median lots, you are really creating some small lots. The last one I'm familiar with is Chan vista. Their median was around 15,000, their average, if I remember right, was like 16,000 by the time you get through and you counted everything in. The way I would like to see it is that the half of your lots that are below that median, the maximum of the average should be 13,500 as if you were a PUD and I think this thing really says that if you really look at it. If you don't do anything as a PUD, your average of the half has to be 15,000 that is what is written here without ever saying that e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 36 e we are going for an averge of 15,000. This is very confusing. I wish I had an easy solution but without completely suggesting a entire new rewriting of a lot of this I can't clearly in the few minutes I've look at this come up with a good, it needs some more work. Dacy: At the workshop session there was a second sentence in 4 that said the minimum average allowed lot size is 15,000 square feet. From the direction from both the groups was that was redundant because if you were forcing 50% of the lots to be 15,000 or greater that we are already enforcing a 15,000 average lot size and the only way that you are going to be able to get down to 13,500 is if you qualify under 7. Johnson: But you can't get to 13,500 ever. That makes it impossible to get to 13,500 unless you have 4, then you have eliminated the top 50% and you are saying that half your lots, we are going to allow you to be undersized on 50% of your lots. Dacy: If you get a 10%. They might not get that. Johnson: Half your lots can be under the 15,000 and if we give you 5%, your average of those half has to be 14,250 or whatever. I think that is what you are trying to say right? If you get the full 10%, then half of your lots, the 50% that is under 15,000 can average 13,500. e Dacy: No, we are saying that the average of the total subdivision can not fall below 13,500. Johnson: with 3 in there saying where half of the subdivision is above 15,000, a subdivision that averages 13,500 is extremely small. You don't have any subdivision in the last year that the average size was 13,500. Dacy: Not in the last year. Fox Hollow is around that. Some of Chaparall development is around that but most of those lots are totally 11,000-12,000 in PUD's. Conrad: That is mechanically what we are trying to get. Dacy: What I'm saying is the total for both parts can't fall below 13,500. If it is a PUD, great but 50% of your lots have to be 15,000 or greater. Johnson: 50% of your lots are 15,000 or greater and the only way to get to 13,500 is to have the other 50% exactly at 12,000 which then you lose points because you no longer are unique and you have created a very poor development. Dacy: That is what they going to be deciding. Conrad: We are talking about average lot size. We're not talking about donated park, we're not talking about those other things. We are talking about lot sizes. We're not talking about the pedestrian walkways or the bikeways. We're not talking about the other things that we may have e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 37 - negotiated. We are talking about average lot but Jay, you're not far off from where I started. I basically fel t that if 4 wasn't in there we didn't have much of a carrot for the developer. Johnson: Even if you have all three, all of that at a minimum, I would like to see it dispersed. I would like to see some l3's, l4's, l2's, l3,5's tossed in there. Dacy: What is being said is, let's say the developer comes in and they do have the 10%. We say this is great you get the 10%. 50% are 15,000, 50% are 12,000. What the math professor is saying is that there is no way you can get a 15,000 square foot average under the present 4 because it is mathematically impossible. Conrad: That's right but we never said we were trying to get 15,000 on the average. Dacy: That's the thing that triggered the whole thing. If we do give the full 10%, and if you calculate the 50% of the lots only on 15,000 square feet, then there is no way that he can get that. Johnson: But he didn't ask for it. He said 13,500. - Dacy: But what he was saying is that the language is confusing and that is what Staff is saying is that as long as you have 3 and as long as you are going to be deciding how much reduction under 7, you don't need it. If it's not a PUD then it has to come through a straight subdivision. Emmings: You've got control of the negotiations. Dacy: 50% of the lots are going to have to be 15,000 or greater. Johnson: If you take away 4 and the 50% that are greater, now you know they are not going to average exactly the 15,000 themselves so let's be practical and say the 50% that are greater than 15,000 averages to 17,500. Now he takes all his other lots and puts them at exactly at 12,000, he can never make the 13,500. Dacy: He will always be above. Johnson: He we will never be able to reach the car rot tha t you just promised him. Unless you have 4 in there, then it mathematically works out to be a carrot. If you want to take away 4, you have to change the 13,500. Dacy: You are encouraging a larger lot size. Johnson: I know how to do that too. Stop talking average lot size and in 7 say you can have all the lots at 12,000 square feet if you meet all of our criteria. When you get the mathematics into it and the averages, that is where it blows everybody away. So, if you meet none of our criteria. If we say that you have met a minimum of one of our criteria, we will allow - Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 38 It you to have 10% of the lots under the bottom half of those lots at 12,000. You can take a reduction of 10% on the lower 50% if you get a little more then you can take 25% and if you do a little more you can have smaller lots on all of it. You see where I'm getting at. I'm sliding the number of lots that you can make smaller. The lay of the land is going to dictact that some are going to be this way or that way. I think the mathematics of putting the 13,500 in 7, you can eliminate 4 if you eliminate the 13,500 out of 7 and talk about increasing the number of lots. Dacy: Basically what you are saying is a percentage increase in the number of lots which coincides with Mr. Erhart. Boyt: Wha t you are sayi ng with tha t standard is if the developer is smar t, don't build a lot over 15,000 square feet and that's too bad. Conrad: Realistically, they are going to build whatever. If we have half the lots over 15,000, he is going to build what the land dictates out there. He's not going to come in right at 15,000. What I don't want is a disincentive for large lots out there. That is why I kind of like that one group of lots that half the lots are over 15,000. I think if we deal with the way Jay is talking about, we're not penalizing the developer for having a whole bunch of large lots out there and it is not impacting the small lots. It Dacy: I think that is what Mr. Erhart is saying. That the other option then is just doing a straight percentage increase. Johnson: 4 really makes the people look at that and say, that doesn't look realistic. Another way to eliminate 4 is in 7, say that the average of the 15,000 or less lots, the average of those lots can be reduced to 13,500. Now he has half of his lots that are between 12,000 and 15,000 and their average has to come up to 13,500 if he gets all the points and 14,000 if he doesn't get as many points, 14,500 if he only has minimum points. I like 4 in there but without 4, 7 doesn't work as written. Woody Rogers: Just a few comments. I like what Mr. Emmings is saying. Having a little bit more subjectivity because a developer may come in with a piece of land that is well suited for certain things and I read over your program the other day, I saw it in the paper and read it over real fast and some of these things that you are giving points to just won't apply to his property at all. They are going to be out of the question of even doing those things so that eliminates points that he can possibly get to earn some percentage. Also, because the averages, the way they work out, if the average lot has to be 15,000 for 50% or more, like you are saying the numbers work out. Some of them are 17,000-20,000 square feet, what you have left over, the way it is written, the minimum of 12,000 he can work for an average of 13,500 between everything, he is not going to gain that many more lots than if he could come in and have that 15,000 square foot subdivision like you were saying. From a developers standpoint, and I'm not a developer yet, but from a developer's standpoint, are 2-3 lots worth the additional expense that you are going to have to go into to develop as It Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 39 e well as the additional hassle of coming through the planning to get that PUD? Is that really worth it? You were talking Mr. Conrad, what is the incentive? I think you really have to pay close attention to that otherwise the tradeoff is you get the subdivision, you get the 15,000 square foot lots, but you do not get any of the things that the City would really like to have put into those places. Boyt: I would counter that a little bit. I think you have a tremendous incentive if you allow people to go below 15,000 square feet. As soon as you do a PUD you allow that so I think, look at the land you get as park land. You get stuff that is unbuildable and you are giving people points for that. Conrad: No. We would not give points for things that we wouldn't normally get. These are beyond what we would expect. Emmings: They are going to have to give something of value to the City to get something back. That is the whole point. e Conrad: That is the whole point. We have been reviewing these PUD's and we keep saying what are we negotiating and we don't know that we are getting anything and that is what we are trying to get above and beyond what we get in a normal subdivision so if somebody gives us green space, I will give them 12,000 square foot lots in the right situation. I don't want to penalize that person for turning over several acres of property for City use, people use, wildlife use, I don't want to penalize them. I will encourage them. I will go down to smaller lot sizes and that is what I feel we have to do but you need the carrot to do that otherwise we don't get these things. If we don't want the things, then you might as well just continue on with the 15,000 square foot subdivision. The other point is I don't see subdivisions coming here that are that much over 15,000. There may be cases and Staff can correct me but when the ordinance is out there, you people are coming in right at that ordinance. That is where they are heading for and that's not absolute and we certainly have some cases like Near Mountain where they are coming in way over and above but the ordinance tends to be what people do. Boyt: Let me just finish. I support that just based on the one developer we worked with, look my competition across the road has this and that is what I'm going to build. I think what you are saying here is give me as close to 15,000 square foot lots as you can put out there because somebody is going to do it and that is who you are competing against. There are a lot of very good things in the ordinance. A lot of things that I think were some of the issues we were battling for all spring and I'm really glad to see them in here. There are a couple items that were probably in the old ordinance and I think may be worth thinking about. One of them is notify people within 100 yards basically of the development. If you look at what happened with Chan vista, that involved people that were within a considerably larger circle then 100 yards. I didn't even get notified about Chan IV, not that I can't read the newspaper, but nothing called it to my attention because I'm about 400 yards from that place. I don't know e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 40 e how to deal with that issue very well but it turned out that Chan vista IV had a tremendous impact on what that builder was saying to us when he was going right outside our backdoor. I think the ordinance is an improvement because it is a lot clearer. I would like to see you do something to encourage bigger lots than 15,000 square feet. That wouldn't build the development that I live in. That wouldn't build a lot of the developments in Chanhassen. Not that there is magic to it but you don't have anything in here that protects a developer from coming and putting down a starter home in an area that has homes that are 2 or 3 steps above that and most of us started in a starter home. There is nothing wrong with starter homes but I think we have to do something to blend these neighborhoods. That is a concern that I am addressing. Johnson: I would like to go on with more detail within this. I did find the calculation that I was trying to figure out, as it was I believe we give the guy a 6% incentive on his increasing number of lots based on a drop to 13,500 on the lower half of the thing and the reason why you have subdivision ordinance to get 100 lots, under this ordinance, if he didn't give us one speck of land, if he didn't give up any land but somehow or other got the maximum number of points, he would get 106 lots. Now, if he gave up enough land, he still would end up with 100 lots and why would he give up the land? 6 lots is not much land. e Rogers: My comment was going to be exactly that. If the developer is having to give away acreage for parkland in order to get an incentive for points in order to qualify for more lots, he is defeating himself to a certain degree. what is really going to determine it for the developer is going to be the lay of the land and how you have to put streets in and whether he is going to have outlots that lend themselves to say, well I can't do anything with this anyway so I'll give it to the City as a park and this is more the case then saying, let's put a nice park because it aethetically it happens to fit this piece of property very well. It works around what he is going to get out of the property. Mrs. Rogers: On some of these, where you say give the land and that, how often is the City given swampland that is kind of no good to the builder? Can the City reject and where the builder should be getting points for donating land and because the City rejected what he was willing to give, he will be penalized? Conrad: If it is not developable land, then you shouldn't be given credit for that. Mrs. Rogers: So the City wants the man can make money on? Conrad: In essence, yes. Mrs. Rogers: Then why would he want to give it to the City then? e Dacy: The trade off would be smaller lots in another area of the subdivision. It has occurred before where they have created usable 6 acres Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 41 e in park deficient areas where the Park and Rec Commission have said they need usable acres here for a neighborhood park and then there is that trade off. Mrs. Rogers: And for what he lost, how many lots we could get out of that usable 6 he was able to cut down elsewhere and get the same number or more lots out of his other property? Dacy: Roughly, yes. Every subdivision isn't going to be looking for parkland. If there is already a neighborhood park there and it is draining on the services to buy that. That is why the list encourages other things to get a PUD. Mrs. Rogers: So in that situation, there are other places where that person could get his full 10 points or whatever by doing other things? Dacy: Sidewalks, creative design, energy design, housing variety, you come in with 5-6 differnent types of houses. As I see it, you have been presented with two options. The ones that are here before you or the ones discussed by Mr. Erhart. Conrad: Any more comments? Johnson: Are you going to look at the rest of the ordinance? ~ Conrad: We've gone through it. We're not going to go through it line by line Jay. Johnson: What I'm trying to insure that we protect with this ordinance, is that we don't decrease, is the public's right and ability to review the information that of what is going to be happening next to them or within their town. As an example, the way I look at the subdivision and the present ordinance, the grading plans for a subdivision should have been made available quite a bit earlier in the Chan vista development then it was. It was never made available to the public where it should have been available to the public but it never got there. We never saw the grading plans. We never got to comment on the grading plans and the developer ended up with an erosion control area where he is going to be taking dirt out of and he is going to be pushing dirt inland and stuff like so that is why I'm sitting here reading it quickly making sure that the public is not losing any rights. I'm very big on public rights. Conrad: We're going to do something tonight but then it is going to go to City Council and we're not sure. Johnson: Is the City Council a public hearing? Conrad: They can make it that. e Johnson: Or they can tell us to be quiet. Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 42 e Dacy: This is the official public hearing as required by law. On Mr. Boyt's suggestion, the state law says 350 feet for surrounding notification. You have every right to increase that to 500 feet or whatever. The developer is responsible for getting from the Abstract Company a list of names. A lot of communities do that and then the City is responsible for notifying them. We might increase our fees a little bit but it is a suggestion that we can act on. Noziska: What about signage? Dacy: On si te? Noziska: Yes. Dacy: I'm sure that we could require, like Lake Minnetonka does, that the proposed site for rezoning, call City Hall at 937-1900. It is done in other communities. Noziska: Sometimes 500 feet just doesn't do it. Around here you can go 500 feet and it still can be 100 feet short of the next neighbor who is going to be concerned with it. I was saying that it can still be short whether you go to 350 or 500 or 600, that gets to be kind of arbitrary. If you can put up a sign where somebody can see it. e Conrad: Also, the other points in here Barbara, where do they come from? Other than the key things that we have been working on as far as the procedure where we really haven't gone through that. Where did you pull those from? Dacy: That is from our proposed zoning ordinance. The big changes, that originally under the present ordinance, the sketch plan is not a required public hearing. What is being proposed is that the first stage, the term sketch plan is being changed to general concept stage to require public hearing. They don't submit detailed data, they don't submit a required plat but it is a concept and it is a public hearing. The next stage is a development stage where a preliminary plat is required and that is a public hearing also. The final plat, the last stage where that is approved by the Council and basically, the final plat is just a mirror of the preliminary plat. The Council is just approving the final dimensions on the lot. Final plat is just the document that is recorded down in the County. Conrad: Howie brings up a point that I thought for sure we had dealt with as far as signage. Signage is real important for subdivision or PUD's. I thought we had it in the new ordinance but I don't... Dacy: Jo Ann just reminded me, it is in the subdivision ordinance where a sign be located on a subdivision. This proposed ordinance, 14.04 subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. Therefore, everything that is required in the subdivision ordinance as far as plan submittal, etc. is also required along with a PUD application. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 43 e Noziska: So signage is in fact required? Dacy: Yes, we have the ability to enforce it. Conrad: But if it is not here in printing. Dacy: It is in the writing of the subdivision. Noziska: You have to read the subdivision ordinance too Ladd. What you are saying is it is kind of a round about way of explaining to someone. Dacy: We have a standard check list that we give to a developer. Siegel: So is the notification of how many yards, 350 yards? That's not in here is it? Dacy: No, because that is governed by state statute. feet but if you want more of a distance, that is fine. a distance. The minimum is 350 You can add more of Woody Rogers: The first time I read these subdivision and PUD, it was very clear that you have to do the two together and that a sign was indeed required. I can't imagine a developer coming in here and just looking at the PUD and missing the fact that he has to deal with the subdivision requirements also. e Johnson: The present ordinance and when you get back into the preliminary development plan where it says you have to go to the other ordinance... Dacy: The final development plan goes back to the subdivision. Johnson: That is where it broke down before because 3/4's of the information that was suppose to be presented in the preliminary plat, or a very large percentage, my subdivision ordinance is now green where I highlighted stuff that Chan vista didn't have available for the public meeting that was suppose to have been there that we never got. If your check list works, that is still in here. Those revisions that I was afraid may have gotten pushed to the wayside are still in here so the public review is there if the information is provided and if the City enforces their rights under the subdivision ordinance. It would be nice to integrate the two ordinances where you have one stop shopping for the developer. I'm an environmental engineer. I work with rules and regulations all the time. I'm always trying to interpret hazardous waste and air pollution regs so I'm very familiar with regs. It was difficult for me to bounce back and forth and I probably spent 30-40 hours reading the two different ordinances and putting them back and forth and for a developer to spend that kind of time doing that to get a good understanding of what is going on there is really difficult so maybe there is a way. I see that as the breakdown of the process. Not only is this ordinance confusing but it's intergration with the other ordinance creates some other confusion. If we are looking at making a PUD easier, ma}be combining the e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 44 two ordinances somehow may be appropriate. e Noziska: The check list covers all that? Dacy: Yes, we go through everything. Mr. Johnson and I are always going to disagree about Chan vista. To me we have checklists, we have time schedules, the developers, if they are any sort of developer, they come in and they meet with us first and they go through that checklist. Some communities, like in Florida, they have what they call a development ordinance where they do combine the subdivision ordinance and a zoning ordinance. However, in the State of Minnesota you are required to have a zoning ordinance and a subdivision ordinance separately. The PUD process is a zoning district and is in the zoning ordinance so we try to handle the overlap administratively. Woody Rogers: Just one thought on notification. Rather than distance if maybe either numbers of people notified or some other formula rather than say 200-1,000 feet. You can have 1,000 feet right next to a corner of a couple subdivisions and the guy is going to spend a fortune tracking down and mailing to all those people. However, if you say the maximum number of people within a given area have to be notified or something like that might be better. Dacy: No matter what, we have to meet State Law and State Law says 350 feet. Woody Rogers: We could say 350 plus. e Dacy: That is exactly what I'm saying but the minimum is 350. Johnson: Is it the property owner that gets notified or if you have an apartment with 40 families living in there, those 40 families don't get notified but the owner who is a New York holding firm gets notified but those 40 citizens have no idea what is about to happen behind them. Emmings: They don't own the property. It is the property owner whose value is effected and that is who they want to give their notice to. Johnson: Their life style is effected. Dacy: In situations like that, for example the downtown project, that winter day and we walked and we knocked on every door and stuck a pamphlet under every door. Emmings: I've got a pet peeve along these same lines and I live out on a lake and things happen across the lake that impact very much on me and several developments have gone up on the lake and we have proposed now, in the new ordinance, when someone builds on the lake lot, they have to give notice to every other lake lot owner on that lake to take care of that problem. My neighbors and I are constantly surprised by things that happen across the lake. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 45 e Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: There are a couple things we could do. We can go through it and do some administrative things. We could also table this for Barb to show us administratively how it could work, if anybody cares about that. I think there was a concern that Pat had to get this moving quickly and if we hang unto to it for 2 weeks it takes 2 weeks longer until it gets to City Counc i 1. Yet, on the other hand I wan t to ma ke sure tha t wha t we send them is workable so I guess, is there more discussion on the whole thing. Emmings: I would just as soon vote on it but I've got one comment and one question. Conrad: Then let's go around and find out what people are thinking. Erhart: I have one comment. Going back to the comment you made on this 4. There is another issue that deals with the numbers and that is the example where you give 5 points. That guy effectively by making one 1 1/4 acre lot can have half the lots at 12,000 square feet. I just wanted to point that out. That is okay. Let's say that a guy has a 50 lot development and you give him 5 points, so that means the average lot size is now suppose to be 14,250. By having one 1 1/4 acre lot he can make half of his lots 12,000 square feet. By have one 52,500 square foot lot. Emmings: You're not saying that could happen under what is in front of us here? e Erhart: Yes. If you take 4 out, that could happen. If you change 4 and substitute 17,500 for that last number, you can solve that whole problem. I can show you the numbers on the board. Let's say a guy has 712,500 square feet and a guy comes in here who has 24 lots times 15,000 each for 360,000 square feet. He has one lot at 52,500 and then he has 25 lots at 12,000 for 300,000 square feet for a total of 712,500. That will calculate out to having 50 lots in the 712,500 which gives you a 14,500 square foot average. He can come in with one 1 1/4 acre lot and then he can make half of his lots at 12,000 and still get the 5 points. A way to solve that is you take 4 and alter it slightly and change the last number to a different than 15,000. If for example you make it 17,500 you get the same thing here and you have 24 times 15 for 360K, you have one big lot but now it is only calculated at 17,500 so now the other 25 lots are going to have to be 13,400 square feet to get his average. Dacy: Wouldn't the 24 lots on top be calculated at 17,500 too? Erhart: No, they are only calculated at the maximum at 17,500. Dacy: How are you going to determine how many lots are calculated at 15,000 and 17,500? Erhart: You can calculate what they are so they can't exceed 17,500. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 46 Dacy: You are saying that 24 of the lots are at l5,000? e Erhart: This one is still at 52,500 square foot lot so you only allow them to use 17,500 with the 15,000 and what they will do is get rid of that one big lot. A tape change occurred while Mr. Erhart was presenting his concept. Erhart: Are those words going into the normal subdivision ordinance too? You know the prevention of clear cutting? Dacy: No. Erhart: Pat Swenson is very concerned about the clear cutting and we are working this into the PUD at this time. However, another developer could come along and do a regular subdivision and still clear-cut. Dacy: If you want to initiate an amendment to the ordinance? Erhart: I would have thought that Pat Swenson would have done that simultaneously with this. I was just curious. I thought Pat Swensonls, one of the big things on this PUD was to prevent this clear cutting. Am I wrong on that? Conrad: She just wants to prevent clear cutting regardless. Erhart: Why not prevent it in the regular subdivision? e Conrad: We should. Erhart: Ilm surprised that hasnlt been initiated. Conrad: Only because we have problems in solving the fires in some PUDls. Dacy: We may have to amend it anyway with some other items. Erhart: So we may want to throw that in at some time. Conrad: A lot of these things actually, Steve you have problems with notification and I think there are times when we should just initiate ordinance changes on things like that. We should just start. Emmings: We did on that one. That one went into the work up on the zoning. Conrad: We always say that takes an ordinance revision but we should start those ordinance revisions. Most of the time we let the agenda dictate where we go. Erhart: Could we ask Barb to put it on the agenda for a future meeting? Conrad: Discussion item. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 47 - Emmings: My only question is this, do you have a feeling from working with developers as to whether or not they would be interested in working under this ordinance the way it is? Do you think getting a few extra lots is going to be interesting enough to them that they are going to want to go through the planning processes, as the comment was made out here, and try and give us something for those few extra lots. Dacy: The only contact with a developer I have made is Jim Curry who said he read the proposed ordinance and felt that it was consistent with what they did in Chan Hills. To be honest with you, in discussing this with Jo Ann, we think you should table it. We're getting conflicting and some good points brought up and maybe if we had another 2 weeks that we can distill everything and come back. I'm jumping ahead from some of the comments. Conrad: I would prefer that personally because I don't think you have worked it out in terms of helping us work it out. I'm kind of not sure the best method of carrying out what we want to get to. I think we get some of the elements there but I'm not sure I know administratively how to do it and I'm not sure that we have applied all the different situations. I would like to apply situations to these rules and see what they give us and therefore we would know rather than me trying to figure out, we would know what the benefit was for the developer or what the benefit was for Chanhassen. Dacy: Sure, and remember, we had the workshop and we had both groups and you wanted certain things. We came back and said our feeling was just to eliminate 4. We thought it could work but through the discussion you have _ been telling us that you don't think so. Erhart: I think we agreed to eliminate 4. We agreed with you. Dacy: I didn't get that from Ladd. Conrad: I'm saying that I would like to eliminate 4 but if we do, I don't think we encourage the developer, based on the mechanics of the ordinance, I don't think we give them enough carrot. Erhart: Actually eliminating 4 is an advantage to the developer. Conrad: No, keeping 4 in is an advantage to the developer. Keeping 4 in would be an advantage. Erhart: No. Noziska: 4 wouldn't be an advantage for the developer. 4 would be a disadvantage but that is really not the thing that still bothers me. I guess the awarding of, what do you do, give him 1.68 percent increase, are we going to give him a 3.5 percent? Somehow I'm not too sure that it is still all of these little ditties under 7 here aren't basically arbitrary and capricious yet and I'm still not so sure that we are going to give the Staff much to work with other than say well, we might give 10% back. In - Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 48 e the old days, at one point Ladd we actually put certain percentages on certain items. We said, well Staff we feel that if you have a passive solar house we'll give you 25% or whatever and then if you do a fire system would give you something something up to a maximum and so on. Conrad: We started there Howie about 3 weeks ago. Noziska: Then all of a sudden we have this. Installation of pedestrian ways. I don't know. Is that worth 1.2% or 5.2%? What do we have that really gives anybody any guess as to what it is we want? Emmings: We've got a Staff that they can come in and talk to so that they can look at the land and say on this land what would be beneficial to the City are these items and maybe some things that aren't even listed here. I believe that it will be just a disaster if you put any number values on them whatsoever because that allows the developer to pick it and get a known result and he might pick the thing that we don't want. We keep forgetting that this is going to be done on a piece of land I think and to tailor what the developer, we want to help the developer tailor his development to the land and the only way we can do that is by leaving this thing wide open. To the extent that you put number values on there, it will be worthless. If it was for making your house fire proof, or something that you mentioned about fire proofing, that is something you want in every house. You know that but you may not want pedestrian ways in every development. It depends on the kind of developer. Until you have the actual plan you don't know which of these things or things that aren't even listed here you do want so you have to leave it open ended. e Siegel: In other words, there might be one thing that a developer comes in with that might be the full benefit of the 10%. Emmings: Right, and it is just so darn good and we want it so bad that we are going to give him the 10%. Conrad: Should we give Staff another 2 weeks to work things out or are you comfortable that we have things pinned down? Wildermuth: I would like to see it worked where we could look at different lot sizes and say 13,500 minimum should be maintained...a breakdown of maybe 60% would be 15,000 and 10% this... Conrad: We have been there too and that gets so confining to the developer that we can't say that is a PUD. If we really say that you have to have this many lots of this size and this many of this size, you are dictating so much. That is why we tried to open up these small lots and give them total flexibility in the lots but also to try to encourage to get those small lots we had to say, you ha ve to give us someth i ng and these are the things that we want to give up so we explored that route and felt we had to give some flexibility to do what he wants. Siegel: It is mathmatically possible what Tim showed on the blackboard. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 49 e Wildermuth moved, Noziska seconded to table approval of the proposed ordinance amendments for two weeks until Staff can corne back with more input based on tonight's discussion. The following is how the commission voted on the motion to table: Erhart Ernm i ng s Siegel Conrad Wildermuth Noziska Opposed Opposed Opposed Favored Favored Favored It was a tie vote and therefore the motion was denied. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment subject to the deletions and additions that Barbara read from the attorney as follows: Section 6. 14.01 Park and Open Space. The creation of public open space may be required by the City. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and overall trail plan. Section 14.03 1. The minimum single family detached lot size is 12,000 square e feet. 2. The minimum single family detached lot width is 80 feet at the building setback line. .Section 4. 14.05 Final Stage. Following preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit the final plat and execute the development contract prepared by the City. The general concept development stage and final stage may proceed simultaneously. The City Council shall then consider the submission for final approval and rezoning to PUD. The deletion of point 4 under 14.03 and the addition of language and additional sentence at the end of the first paragraph under point 7 under 14.03 that would read: "The reduction in average lot size may be granted if, in the opinion of the City Staff, Commissions and Council, the plan includes features desirable to the City such as:" and then those items would be listed. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 50 e Noziska: Ladd, you were discussing the concern for not providing enough carrot to the developer. Do you have any specific thought that would provide that carrot? Conrad: My concern is with 4 out of there, I don't see how the developer can ever achieve 13,500. It is impossible so my concern is not with the ordinance as it is in concept, it is the method of calculating the reduction in lot size. With 4 out of there, and my point on 4 was and you all said no it wasn't good for the developer, what we did with 4 was we took all the large lots and made them small lots so half the lots came in at 15,000 square feet. Therefore, because all the large lots are coming in exactly at 15,000, we have a chance that the developer earns the bonus. Emmings: I think your problem is you are saying that if a guy has a whole bunch of 20,000 square foot lots, we are going to call them 15,000 but remember, he is working in a confined area Ladd so to the extent that those are bigger, he has no ability to balance them with small lots. Noziska: Right, so no matter what he does his minimum is still 12,000 and he's not going to create more acreage than there is. Emmings: I don't think it helps him one bit. I think the developer is going to look at that as a real thorn in his side. e Conrad: But then how do you get, and that is possible because I understand that, but how can we possibly, if we require half the lots to be over 15,000, going back to what I said about an hour ago, those will come in at an average of 17,000. How do we get him small lot potential when half the lots are 17,000? How do we allow him, basically his overall lot size will probably come in right at 15,000 which he could have gotten in a subdivision? Emmings: But isn't that for him to figure out? What we are saying is look, we are happy with our subdivision ordinance and if you want to put in a subdivision, put in a subdivision. If you want to go below 15,000 minimum, then you are going to have to make us happy, negotiate with us and give us something under our PUD ordinance. How you do that is up to you and if you can't do it, fine put in a subdivision but if you want to get smaller than the 15,000 foot minimum, this is what you are going to have to do. If you can't do it you can't do it. They can do it. I think it can be done. They might not ever get a 13,500. I don't think you will. Conrad: You can't. Emmings: You can theoretically but you probably won't but nevertheless, so what? Maybe it comes in at 14,000. So much the better. Conrad: So much the better but then again they aren't going to be willing to give up anything. Dacy: If you don't then it is a straight subdivision. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 51 e Emmings: My feeling is that the developer is going to be so interested in getting a few more lots in his project that he is going to be interested in this. If I'm a developer and I can 1-3 more houses and that is where I make my money I think they are going to be interested. I think the carrot is there and I know nothing about land development. Noziska: If I was looking at this, I would look at this whole discussion as being terribly important because let's just take a guy who has 270,000 square feet. If he is going to do everything that we wish him to do, he takes 10 of those lots at 15,000 square feet and he takes 10 more of them at 12,000 and all of a sudden he has 270,000 square feet. All right whereas if he was to corne in without all this mickey mouse and give the City this here and that there and screwing around for ever, he walzes in here with 18 lots instead of 20 and not have to give us anything so I guess yes, we are giving something but we're not giving that much and the way of the topography of Chanhassen goes, if you are able to squeeze out of that 270,000 square feet one extra lot, I would say you would be awful lucky so I guess yes, we're giving them something but not an awful lot. Erhart: money. But two lots that is $60,000.00 to $70,000.00. I'll screw around a lot for $70,000.00. That is a lot of Noziska: If the topography allows it and if you were talking about flat, straight, square land. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about giving him a great big gift, we're talking about giving him a maximum of a couple lots. I don't think it is a big deal and any discussion on fiddling around with mathematics and calculating a 50,000 and 13,000 e doesn't work. Emmings: Your example Howard involves the development of how many acres? Noziska: 270,000 square feet. Emmings: We don't see developments like that but I think what we are talking about with PUD's much bigger ones and they are going to get more than 2 lots. They are going to get 10 lots and it is going to be significant. They are going to get more than that. Conrad: I'm not usually in this position of encouraging the developer but I do see the PUD as a real significant, creative tool and I want to make sure that it is used creatively for this town and that is my biggest concern. I'll vote for your motion if you allow me to have Staff prepare some different scenarios for City Council to look at so when this gets to them they can see, here's a development and this guy got 6%. I want Staff to go through that administratively and bring that to City Council. Emmings: My comment to that would be, and Bill Boyt made me think about it really with his comment that we have to worry about precedent. Here we gave this developer this reduction because he did these things and I think Jay answered him right on the money. Each of one of these is absolutely unique. It is unique because of the topography, it is unique because the e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 52 e developer is interested in different aspects. I think we will be very easily able to justify everyone of these on it's own merits so that they do not set a precedent for another one. I think that has to be set down but I don't think you can do your scenarios for the same reason because until you have a specific plan on a specific piece of ground and because it is a matter of negotiation between the developer and the City and the City may want different things. Maybe it is an area of the City where there are no parks and our number one priority is getting a park and I don't know how, your scenarios are going to be so convoluted. Conrad: I don't want a scenario over the points, I just want a scenario that however we got to those 6 points, that increase in density or the decrease in lot size, I want to see how it works. I want to see how the numbers turn out for the developer so that shouldn't tamper with your concerns and I can just direct Staff to do that because I think they are going to want to show that to City Council. If they do that I think City Council will be playing with information that will show that. They are going to make a decision the same. Erhart: 11m just going to give a pitch to pass this thing. I look at this as City Council initiated this change, we had a joint meeting on it, we had the opportunity to talk about all these things, we are given a draft here tonight which we are 99% in agreement with. I think it is time to give it back to the City Council and let's move on to things that we initiated here. Conrad: We're confused, I'm confused. I drafted a lot of this and e therefore my reasoning. Erhart: I agree. I have a concern too but I don't think we need to fix it here. My Minutes will go to the City Council and your concerns through what you just described will also. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Grading and Erosion Control. Dacy: What we are requiring is that on a building permit application this gives the building department the legal authority to require a Certificate of Survey with grades proposed and existing indicated on there as well as requiring a proposed erosion control on an individual basis. Not only with proposed subdivisions, we normally do that anyway, but also for existing lots of record that are now coming in to be built on. It also requires that no grading can occur closer than 20 feet from the edge of the wetland, lake, pond, etc., water body. If during the site construction something occurs that is causing problems, it enables the building inspector to require more erosion control. It beefs up our legal basis to enforce installation of silt fence and hay bales on an individual lot basis. Woody Rogers: Basically you are saying that you just want to have more control on the drainage of individual lots as much as for a subdivision. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 53 e Dacy: A Certificate of Survey is usually required required in all cases. As long as the surveyor is the grades and elevations and show us the existing is going to be done. anyway. This makes it out there, he can take and propose exactly what Rogers: I have one question about the wetlands. How does it effect the welands? You mentioned about within 20 feet of designated wetland areas you can't grade. Is that just saying you can't grade or that you have to meet specific requirements? Dacy: They have to keep out of that area. Rogers: I don't know how you can say that because there may be some specific instances where grading could actually be beneficial to the wetlands and saying you can't do this. Dacy: You are brand new to the community right? Rogers: Yes. You have the DNR which controls a great deal what you can do and can't do. Dacy: We also have an existing Wetlands Ordinance. This community is very concerned about sediment and disposing into the lakes, etc. We have had problems in the past and it is a clear cut City policy that you are to keep out of those wetlands period. e Olsen: You can get an alteration permit to go into a wetland. Rogers: So there is... Dacy: But it is a public hearing process and it is not given... Rogers: Well, just to know that there is some avenue but just laying down the rules and saying you can't do that regardless. I think that is wrong but there is another avenue so I don't have any questions. Johnson: This does not void the wetlands alteration process? By having a law that says you can't do this, that does not mean that we can not now give them a wetlands alteration permit? Dacy: You can also ask for a variance for anything unfortumately. Johnson: I thought the wetlands ordinance already restricted you from doing anything within 75 feet of the wetlands? Dacy: That is for building setback and 150 feet for a septic system. The actual grading of earth materials because what we found on some of the older lake lots, sometimes we have gotten calls on this that they will grade all the way down to the lake, they won't install erosion control and dirt slides into the lake. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 54 e Johnson: Could it be worded as such tha t you refer to the wetland alteration permit? Say no grading within 20 feet without a wetlands alteration permit per regulation whatever that is. Would that close the loops? Dacy: This is not preventing that. From an ordinance standpoint, if there is a situation where they feel they have to be 10 feet away, then they can go through the wetland alteration permit. Staff is going to tell them that. If somebody comes in and says I want to do this, what can I do, it is a mechanism that is already there. Rogers: They will have to get a variance also? Dacy: There is a process whatever you call it? Johnson: By passing this will they have to get both a variance and a wetland alteration permit? Dacy: They would have to get a variance, with the 20 foot setback requirement they would have to get a variance. If you were physically going into the wetland, you will have to get a wetland alteration permit. No matter what, they are going to be hit with a public hearing process if they don't want to meet the ordinance requirement. Rogers: I've got one specific example that I am taking up. For example a wetland area that is not part of a lake, it is just a marshy area and a developer would want to come in and take that area and clean it up. A e little ponding area, some islands and fix it up and make it a real nice, attractive area for community development, then he is going to need? Dacy: Those have been done in some of the past subdivisions requests. There is a significant amount of wetlands and Council has approved permits where wetlands can serve as potential basins also but still maintain wildlife there and vegetation. This ordinance is not precluding that. Also remember, we had environmental protection meetings to set up, wetlands have been designated by the community to be looked at very closely in their alteration because it was felt by the City at that time that they serve a specific purpose. It is a unique ordinance. We are probably one of the only communities that has the wetland ordinance beyond the DNR requirements and I think that clearly relays the City's intentions to protect those. We understand that there are issues that have to be resolved and we can resolve them. Emmings moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: I have a concern. What are we changing here? Dacy: We are adding. Conrad: We are adding to what? e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 55 e Dacy: To the zoning ordinance to require each building permit as it comes in has to explain it's plan. At this point we don't have this regulation so we aren't changing, we're just adding. Conrad: In some of your comments here it talks about contracters and builders but it doesn't talk individuals. Dacy: Individuals can build their homes. They still need the permit. Conrad: I think some of the individuals that are doing building are some of the biggest spenders but on the other hand I don't know what they have to do. Let's say somebody is building a garage on their lot. Let's say it is on a lake that is quite a ways. What do they have to give you? Dacy: The inspection department is going to be looking at common sense. If you have a flat piece of ground as flat as this and you are building a garage, they may not require the grading. This gives them the power to point to the ordinance and say we need these things. Noziska: It gives the building inspector the discretion to say this is what I need and this is what backs me up. Conrad: Do you read that into the ordinance? It gets into discretion but not the absolute power to require it all the time. Noziska: If he feels it is necessary, he will require it. e Dacy: It gives him the power to require it all the time. Noziska: If he feels that it is something that won't be altering the terrain that much, then he may not feel it is necessary. Conrad: But the words say before a building permit is issued for construction. Well, the way I read the words, it says you have to get one and is that what you want? I guess Staff is saying no, maybe they don't have to. Wildermuth: It says the building inspector shall be empowered to require additional controls so he has the authority. Conrad: Additional controls but I'm talking about in the first point, everybody has to submit a grading plan. Noziska: Absolutely. Of course, you have to have a grading plan, you have to have a topographic map of your site and you have to say here is how it is and here is how I plan on it being when I'm done. Conrad: A gazebo or porch needs a building permit so for those things we are requiring, based on this language, everybody, every citizen. You know developers and builders are prepared to do this and they will do that. They are working on major projects in subdivisions or whatever, but I'm e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 56 talking about one person. e Noziska: Ladd, if all you are going to do is dig five holes and set a gazebo on top of it, I rather doubt that the building inspector is going to get real excited about it. Ernmings: I think you are right. Conrad: I don't read that here. This says you have to. Noziska: Then you say I do not plan to significantly alter the terrain. Emmings: Before he can get his building permit he has to submit the plan. Noziska: He just points out that he does not intend to alter it significantly so that he needs to put hay bales and straw bales so he says that. Erhart: Why doesn't this go into the subdivision ordinance rather than the zoning ordinance? Dacy: We want it to apply to individual lots. Building lots that have been created before it was subdivided. Emmings: Bob made a good point here. Read a little more. Siegel: It says if existing contours of the property will be changed. e Emmings: contour. So if you are putting up a gazebo you aren't changing the Siegel: You aren't changing the contours of the property if you are putting in post holes. Conrad: Say you build a basement on a steep slope going down to the lake. Noziska: Then you have to get a permit and he has to have some kind of plan as to how he is going to keep the slit out of the water. Siegel: You are going to change the contour of the land. Johnson: Ladd, if I may, I do disagree with what you are saying that everyone will require this because it says a satisfactory erosion control and grading plan must be approved by the building inspector. By putting in sa tis factory and approved does not mean tha tit has to be done by a surveyor. If I corne in and say I've sketched this out and the building inspector says that is satisfactory to me, I approve it, it gives him a lot of discretion. I believe that the actual wording of 19.24 gives the building inspector a tremendous amount of discretion of his approval of your plan. e Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 1986 - Page 57 - Dacy: 2 also includes spot elevations. If you are building that means that you are going to get your surveyor out there. Johnson: Yes, if you are building a house but if you are putting in a gazebo or a deck, the building inspector will say this is adequate to me and then the two define what is satisfactory. Dacy: If they are going to be moving earth, we want a grading plan. It just comes down to that. Conrad: If you are going to be moving earth which could be a garage. Dacy: If you are going to build a garage into the side of the slope and so on, then yes, we are going to have to have it but if it is pretty flat and you are just going to put the concrete foundation. Conrad: Howie, what does it take for me or you to do a grading plan? Do you have to hire somebody to do it or can you do it yourself? Noziska: It depends on the scope of the project. If you are going to put a garage in and plot land, go to the building inspector and say there is no water going over anyway. If you are going to put it in on a steep slope they it may require some engineering so the whole nine works doesn't slide down the hill. It totally depends on the scope of the project and this gives the building official the latitude when reviewing that to say, hold on we need more notes on your plan like where are you going to put your straw bales so you can keep your silt out of the pond. - Conrad: Is everyone comfortable that it is not going to be negative to a small project. Noziska: I don't think it will have a single effect on the small project. The building official doesn't want to ding around with that anyway but if he has some developer or some homeowner who is doing something that is not reasonable, not acting as a reasonable person, he wants to be able to come back with something and give him the ability to say he has to put straw bales down and here is what backs me up. Siegel moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance amendment #86-4 to amend Section 19.24 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to approve Commission meeting dated August 20, 1986. carried. the Minutes of the Planning All voted in favor and motion Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim -